I was checking out MTG.com, and noticed that they've got this nifty deck archive.
Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how it is with the decks. I just know that the naming ain't so great, and they're barely referenced to a reliable source; which are my two main concerns, among many others.
So... what qualifies, what doesn't?
Effectively, this is yet another opinion thread.
I would think well defined historical archetypes would work. Cocoa Pebbles, Necro-Trix, Ravager Affinity. Like the lists that won pro tours, Worlds, Nats and what not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
SKRules on Dark Rit art
5th is just a guy snapping his fingers. Maybe Nicol Bolas can get mana that way, but I can't.
Ah, okay.
So... for something like Sligh, would you say the decklists that are to be displayed are the original one(s, if plural), in addition to other notable ones, e.g. tournament-winning ones?
=|
I didn't, don't, and won't play Magic competitively, and I didn't and don't play Magic at any level other than with-friends casual, so ... if I'm going to do anything here, I'm going to need help. =|
i think user-contributions (serious contributions) would be suitable. For example if somebody knew Sligh from the very beginnings and posted a list + other lists (or others adding to it) that could help contribute to a deckapedia of things.
With certain decks, this is very easy -- however, there are many grey lines as to which variants and which "notable lists" are important. Notwithstanding, I think there are enough people with heavy backgrounds on 1-2 decks (each) who could write wonderful entries
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
however, there are many grey lines as to which variants and which "notable lists" are important
With this blurring of archetypes and decklists, I think it'll be worthwhile to list the original deck for the generic archetype; for example, the [NAME] Affinity deck -- on which there would also be Ravager Affinity (I'm assuming there was an Ravagerless Affinity archetype for some time or other).
That's for example, only, though.
I wish the other guys would have some say, but that's my say, at 1 am.
An old issue of Inquest had the top ten greatest decks of all time. zwoan on the star city games forums originally posted all this.
1. The Necrodeck
2. The Deck
3. Titania/Balance Deck
4. Kird Ape/Channelball
5. Enhnamgeddon
6. The Rack/Balance Deck
7. Vise Age
8. Bazaar Reanimator
9. ProsBloom
10. Big Beef Land Destruction
1. The Necrodeck
2 Icy Manipulator
1 Ivory Tower
2 Nevinyrral's Disk
1 Zuran Orb
4 Strip Mine
18 Swamp
4 Black Knight
4 Dark Ritual
3 Drain Life
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Hypnotic Specter
2 Icequake
1 Ihsan's Shade
4 Necropotence
4 Order of the Ebon Hand
2 Sengir Vampire
2. The Deck
1 Black Lotus
2 Disrupting Scepter
1 Jayemdae Tome
1 Mirror Universe
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Amnesia
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Braingeyser
2 Counterspell
4 Mana Drain
1 Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Regrowth
2 Red Elemental Blast
4 Disenchant
2 Moat
2 Serra Angel
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 City of Brass
4 Island
1 Loa
2 Plains
3 Strip Mine
4 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
3. Titania/Balance Deck
1 Black Lotus
1 Chaos Orb
4 Fellwar Stone
3 Howling Mine
4 Icy Manipulator
1 Ivory Tower
2 Jade Statue
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
4 Relic Barrier
3 Winter Orb
1 Regrowth
3 Titania's Song
4 Balance
4 Disenchant
4 Swords to Plowshares
1 Forest
4 Mishra's Factory
1 Mishra's Workshop
2 Plains
4 Savannah
4 Strip Mine
4. Kird Ape/Channelball
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Emerald
1 Sol Ring
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Counterspell
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Berserk
1 Channel
4 Elvish Archers
4 Giant Growth
4 Llanowar Elves
1 Regrowth
4 Disintegrate
4 Fireball
4 Kird Ape
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Forest
1 Loa
1 Mountain
4 Strip Mine
4 Taiga
4 Tropical Island
4 Volcanic Island
5. Erhnamgeddon
1 Feldon's Cane
2 Fellwar Stone
1 Zuran Orb
1 Autumn Willow
4 Erhnam Djinn
1 Hurricane
4 Llanowar Elves
2 Sylvan Library
2 Whirling Dervish
3 Armageddon
1 Balance
3 Disenchant
2 Land Tax
2 Order of Leitbur
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Wrath of God
4 Brushland
8 Forest
7 Plains
4 Strip Mine
6. The Rack/Balance Deck
1 Black Lotus
1 Candelabra of Tawnos
1 Chaos Orb
3 Library of Leng
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
2 Relic Barrier
4 The Rack
1 Regrowth
3 Sylvan Library
4 Chain Lightning
3 Fireball
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Bazaar of Baghdad
1 Maze of Ith
4 Mishra's Factory
4 Plateau
4 Savannah
4 Taiga
4 Balance
2 Consecrate Land
3 Disenchant
4 Animate Dead
4 Ashen Goul
4 Dark Ritual
1 Demonic Consultation
4 Krovikan Horror
4 Nether Shadow
4 Shallow Grave
4 Vampiric Tutor
4 Deep Spawn
4 Nicol Bolas
2 Crimson Hellkite
4 Bazaar of Baghdad
4 Badlands
1 Diamond Valley
8 Swamp
4 Underground Sea
9. ProsBloom
2 Drain Life
4 Infernal Contract
4 Vampiric Tutor
4 Impulse
4 Prosperity
4 Cadaverous Bloom
4 Squandered Resources
2 City of Solitude
1 Elven Cache
4 Natural Balance
3 Wall of Roots
2 Bad River
7 Forest
5 Island
6 Swamp
4 Undiscovered Paradise
10. Big Beef Land Destruction
1 Black Lotus
2 Jayemdae Tome
4 Juggernaut
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
1 Sol Ring
4 Dark Ritual
2 Demonic Hordes
1 Demonic Tutor
2 Drain Life
4 Hypnotic Specter
4 Juzam Djinn
4 Sinkhole
2 Terror
4 Bayou
4 Forest
1 Loa
7 Swamp
1 Berserk
4 Ice Storm
2 Instill Energy
1 Regrowth
1. The Necrodeck
Type: Type II/Standard
Lifetime: Spring 96 to fall 96
2. The Deck
Type: I/Classis
Lifetime: Spring 95 to Spring 96
3. Titania/Balance Deck 94 to Spring 95
Type: Type I/Classic
Lifetime: Fall
4. Kird Ape/Channelball
Type: 1.5/Classis
Lifetime: Spring 94 to Fall 95
5. Enhnamgeddon
Type: Type II/Standard
Lifetime: Fall 95 to Spring 97
6. The Rack/Balance Deck
Type: Type I/Classic
Lifetime: Winter 94 to Spring 95
7. Vise Age
Type: Type II/Standard
Lifetime: Summer 95 to Early 96
8. Bazaar Reanimator
Type: 1.5/Classic Restricted
Lifetime: Early 97 to present (= April 1998)
9. ProsBloom
Type: Mirage/Visions Constructed
Lifetime: Spring 97
10. Big Beef Land Destruction
Type: Type I/Classic
Lifetime: Early 94 to Spring 94
Media is not making me steal. But in a way is like the story of the very hot girl with the short skirt teasing the old sick guy with a history of rape.
First and foremost, thanks DevouringZombie and Frenger.
Secondly, to matters of discussion. Accuracy; what happens when a deck rotates out of the non-Eternal formats? Whenever's "Standards" isn't necessarily going to be the same Standard we're talking about year's after.
... and such is the naming issue of these deck articles.
The article's title is at the top of the page; it's the literal head of the article in both senses -- of page design/format, and of relative importance.
First and foremost, thanks DevouringZombie and Frenger.
Secondly, to matters of discussion. Accuracy; what happens when a deck rotates out of the non-Eternal formats? Whenever's "Standards" isn't necessarily going to be the same Standard we're talking about year's after.
... and such is the naming issue of these deck articles.
The article's title is at the top of the page; it's the literal head of the article in both senses -- of page design/format, and of relative importance.
Article names, I'm not sure but I just put like Standard in 1996 or whatever on the page.
It might be easiest to just have each deck be named "Keeper" and "Dragonstorm" and then in the article say when it was played and in what format. This is also better for decks that were played in more than one format.
Oh hi by the way, i just found out we had a wiki. I'm going to be working on it in my spare time where my knowledge applies. (Eternal formats decks and history mostly)
Media is not making me steal. But in a way is like the story of the very hot girl with the short skirt teasing the old sick guy with a history of rape.
Hurrah, you've got a similar idea to myself; adding the year name which it first came to be and/or fame.
Quote from Frenger »
It might be easiest to just have each deck be named "Keeper" and "Dragonstorm" and then in the article say when it was played and in what format. This is also better for decks that were played in more than one format.
That's viable, too; but it also means deck articles would perhaps tend to become particularly long, with or without "Magic theory" (simulations, mana curves, etc., and other stuff few understand).
Quote from Frenger »
Oh hi by the way, i just found out we had a wiki. I'm going to be working on it in my spare time where my knowledge applies. (Eternal formats decks and history mostly)
Cool, good to know that the slightly neglected areas of the wiki have got more support.
Thanks for that.
That's viable, too; but it also means deck articles would perhaps tend to become particularly long, with or without "Magic theory" (simulations, mana curves, etc., and other stuff few understand).
Then why not just make pages for Mana Curve and stuff and link to them? Alternatively since a page on Mana Curve seems a bit... odd, Just make a page for Magic Theory with sections on mana curve and stuff, and then in an article about a deck that mentions mana curve have it redirect to the magic theory page's section on Mana Curve. (you can redirect like that can't you?)
The wiki's all about informing the uninformed isn't it?
Media is not making me steal. But in a way is like the story of the very hot girl with the short skirt teasing the old sick guy with a history of rape.
Then why not just make pages for Mana Curve and stuff and link to them? Alternatively since a page on Mana Curve seems a bit... odd, Just make a page for Magic Theory with sections on mana curve and stuff, and then in an article about a deck that mentions mana curve have it redirect to the magic theory page's section on Mana Curve. (you can redirect like that can't you?)
Mana curve.
It's a stylistic thing; decapitalise where possible, and also, it isn't essential that links be capitalised, as the first letter will be parsed as though it were capitalised anyway.
...
There is a mana curve page, and other similar pages, and perhaps it's worthwhile looking into 'informing the uninformed' (as quoted below, in this post).
There are numerous impediments and problems, however.
The wiki's all about informing the uninformed isn't it?
Yes, but it is the conveyer's responsibility to make it lucid and crystal clear for the intended audience.
When explaining "statistical analysis" and god-knows-what, it should be in language and register that even the newbiest of newbs can catch on.
Another thing to consider -- if you wanna 'wiki' the decks is citations
I think it's near-mandatory to include where you got a decklist/posted list from. The timespan and "claim to fame" is a must...but give credit for a list whenever and wherever possible.
Some decks should indeed have background but deck credit should be given
example: affinity (off the top of my head) An aggro deck that relies on the mechanic "affinity" to hastily dump cards from the hand into play and kill with creatures. It debuted with the artifact-heavy block Mirrordin. The deck gained incredible popularity due to its efficiency of "fast kills" and cheap cost to build (economics/money-wise).
Affinity originally revolved around mirrordin's artifact lands, cheap artifact creatures (ornithopter, welding jar), and frogmites + myr enforcers who would come out at discounted mana costs via enough artifacts in play (abusing the affinity mechanic). Spells like Thirst for Knowledge and Thoughcast and Shrapnel blast backed up the creature base.
---blah blah...original "big man" was broodstar
---blah blah...ravager and deck changes
---blah blah....so good top cards got banned in STANDARD and EXT
---blah blah...today's vial affinity in vintage and legacy
*decklists and notable impacts on the deck sprinkled in
**cited/links to decklists and maybe MTG/SCG/etc articles
maybe including stats and crap like "controversy" like the real wiki
-my 2 cents...
And if I can, I call doing Slide's wiki --- my fav deck ever + ive played it since it came out (late 2002/03?)
EDIT: Only real issue is providing false information --- the reason teachers frown on wikipedia. It's an "open source" encyclopedia but it's susceptible to having people dump jank/wrong info into it. Wiki has things scanned and filtered. Im sure somebody/a team of people could "scan" and "filter" content and then get it posted (also helps grammar and read-ability)
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I wouldn't mind seeing a Decks section on the wiki, as long as it meets the standards set by BethMo in her Deck Deconstruction column from the Duelist, or by Frank Karsten (Deck-O-Pedia). I would say Karsten's analyses are an example of the minimum standard you should be aiming for.
Things you need to discuss along with the content of the actual deck:
*Original designer(s) and the players who made the deck famous (not always the same people)
*Metagame in which that deck prospered
*Variants used by prominent players
*Issues with the deck vs. common strategies (or in the case of decks that were too overpowered, the actions WOTC or the community took to fix them)
*Major tournaments won or featuring these decks in the top 8
*What happened to the deck later (made obsolete by cards printed later in the block; adapted to Extended; morphed into something else)
That should bring you up to at least the standard set by Bethmo and if you wanted to add any strategy analysis, or unusual anecdotes involving the deck, that would make it a lot more readable.
Sorry, forgot to check up on the response to making things work...
few questions/comments:
*i want slide...and i can have it done adequately by thanksgiving or sooner!
1. do decks and posting on the wiki follow deck tag formatting? If I gotta post a decklist, im assuming we want to click the cards...or do we post plain text?
2. if we can't find players / key figures, can we just show links and/or names of lists (and obv give credit)?
3. post as many variants as possible or just key ones?
4. do we post that "so-and-so wrote this" for each section?
5. do we need permission or should we just post right to the wiki?
-if we need permission, who do we go to?
**sorry if this info is already somewhere...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
This page is a good example, for starters, for a tournament deck article. Click the "edit this page" tab on the top and you'll see how decks are formatted. There aren't many tags really. Please keep the cards seperated as shown on the page (artifacts, creatures ...)
In response to your other questions, i'd say:
2. Yes you can show links and/or names of lists and give credit
3. Post key variants if possible
4. Citing would be great but if citations aren't possible that's ok too.
5. I'd say no on permission, this hasn't been an issue, ever; so far.
Thanks for your questions
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It's worked so far, but we're not out yet." ~ Bones
Yea, I actually plan on doing a bunch of these....unfort college hold back the speed at which I can write.
The biggest thing about this is (imo) the interest and help it brings. I remember I got my friend into MTG seriously by explaining different decks. And when some of us look back and see things like "THE ROCK" we can actually see its progression and evolution. The very cliche "B/G is not the rock....back in my day, we played XYZ." I'd love to help paint this picture
I'll find a solid way to write it out (more story and explanation than sheer list hopefully). I dont wanna just post lists and say "figure it out"
I am also interested in learning other decks and hope some prominent players in certain archetypes submit things (even if its 1-2 lists). For example, I know the basics of storm but would love for someone to really in-depth go over choices (esp T1 storm stuff or T1 keeper)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
This might be obvious, but it seems to me like each key deck variant should also include the date and/or the sets that were legal at the time that the deck variant first appeared. For example, the Affinity deck when Mirrodin first became legal is an entirely different beast than the Affinity deck when Darksteel first became legal.
Also if Make your own standard ever becomes more prevalent, it might be desirable to eventually try to include a variety of decks for each block constructed format.
This might be obvious, but it seems to me like each key deck variant should also include the date and/or the sets that were legal at the time that the deck variant first appeared. For example, the Affinity deck when Mirrodin first became legal is an entirely different beast than the Affinity deck when Darksteel first became legal.
Also if Make your own standard ever becomes more prevalent, it might be desirable to eventually try to include a variety of decks for each block constructed format.
I agree with everything EXCEPT block decks...
Maybe it's just me -- but "block" is merely a more limited side to standard. Block is not like Legacy vs Vintage...and it's not like Standard vs EXT -- I dont consider block particularity important.
Edit: If the deck was a powerhouse in standard, there's really no need to post it's "block variant" as well....just my 2 cents
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I was checking out MTG.com, and noticed that they've got this nifty deck archive.
Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how it is with the decks. I just know that the naming ain't so great, and they're barely referenced to a reliable source; which are my two main concerns, among many others.
So... what qualifies, what doesn't?
Effectively, this is yet another opinion thread.
Cheers.
So... for something like Sligh, would you say the decklists that are to be displayed are the original one(s, if plural), in addition to other notable ones, e.g. tournament-winning ones?
=|
I didn't, don't, and won't play Magic competitively, and I didn't and don't play Magic at any level other than with-friends casual, so ... if I'm going to do anything here, I'm going to need help. =|
With certain decks, this is very easy -- however, there are many grey lines as to which variants and which "notable lists" are important. Notwithstanding, I think there are enough people with heavy backgrounds on 1-2 decks (each) who could write wonderful entries
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
That's for example, only, though.
I wish the other guys would have some say, but that's my say, at 1 am.
How about just porting the decks that appear on MTG.com?
Personally, I think it's a pointless endeavour, though; when we can just direct users to MTG.com.
Oh, as for not stealing decklists from MTG.com, well, there's a dearth of user interest/participation.
The Solution really did just crush the field.
Off the top of my head...
Rebels
Fires
Tooth and Nail
Long
ProsBloom
Serra Angel Control
Stax
1. The Necrodeck
2. The Deck
3. Titania/Balance Deck
4. Kird Ape/Channelball
5. Enhnamgeddon
6. The Rack/Balance Deck
7. Vise Age
8. Bazaar Reanimator
9. ProsBloom
10. Big Beef Land Destruction
2 Icy Manipulator
1 Ivory Tower
2 Nevinyrral's Disk
1 Zuran Orb
4 Strip Mine
18 Swamp
4 Black Knight
4 Dark Ritual
3 Drain Life
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Hypnotic Specter
2 Icequake
1 Ihsan's Shade
4 Necropotence
4 Order of the Ebon Hand
2 Sengir Vampire
2. The Deck
1 Black Lotus
2 Disrupting Scepter
1 Jayemdae Tome
1 Mirror Universe
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Amnesia
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Braingeyser
2 Counterspell
4 Mana Drain
1 Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Regrowth
2 Red Elemental Blast
4 Disenchant
2 Moat
2 Serra Angel
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 City of Brass
4 Island
1 Loa
2 Plains
3 Strip Mine
4 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
3. Titania/Balance Deck
1 Black Lotus
1 Chaos Orb
4 Fellwar Stone
3 Howling Mine
4 Icy Manipulator
1 Ivory Tower
2 Jade Statue
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
4 Relic Barrier
3 Winter Orb
1 Regrowth
3 Titania's Song
4 Balance
4 Disenchant
4 Swords to Plowshares
1 Forest
4 Mishra's Factory
1 Mishra's Workshop
2 Plains
4 Savannah
4 Strip Mine
4. Kird Ape/Channelball
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Emerald
1 Sol Ring
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Counterspell
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Berserk
1 Channel
4 Elvish Archers
4 Giant Growth
4 Llanowar Elves
1 Regrowth
4 Disintegrate
4 Fireball
4 Kird Ape
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Forest
1 Loa
1 Mountain
4 Strip Mine
4 Taiga
4 Tropical Island
4 Volcanic Island
5. Erhnamgeddon
1 Feldon's Cane
2 Fellwar Stone
1 Zuran Orb
1 Autumn Willow
4 Erhnam Djinn
1 Hurricane
4 Llanowar Elves
2 Sylvan Library
2 Whirling Dervish
3 Armageddon
1 Balance
3 Disenchant
2 Land Tax
2 Order of Leitbur
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Wrath of God
4 Brushland
8 Forest
7 Plains
4 Strip Mine
6. The Rack/Balance Deck
1 Black Lotus
1 Candelabra of Tawnos
1 Chaos Orb
3 Library of Leng
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
2 Relic Barrier
4 The Rack
1 Regrowth
3 Sylvan Library
4 Chain Lightning
3 Fireball
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Bazaar of Baghdad
1 Maze of Ith
4 Mishra's Factory
4 Plateau
4 Savannah
4 Taiga
4 Balance
2 Consecrate Land
3 Disenchant
7. Vise Age
4 Black Vise
4 Howling Mine
3 Stormbind
4 Erhnam Djinn
4 Tinder Wall
2 Fireball
4 Incinerate
2 Jokulhaups
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Orchish Lumberjack
2 Orgg
1 Shatter
8 Forest
4 Karplusan Forest
8 Mountain
4 Strip Mine
8. Bazaar Reanimator
4 Animate Dead
4 Ashen Goul
4 Dark Ritual
1 Demonic Consultation
4 Krovikan Horror
4 Nether Shadow
4 Shallow Grave
4 Vampiric Tutor
4 Deep Spawn
4 Nicol Bolas
2 Crimson Hellkite
4 Bazaar of Baghdad
4 Badlands
1 Diamond Valley
8 Swamp
4 Underground Sea
9. ProsBloom
2 Drain Life
4 Infernal Contract
4 Vampiric Tutor
4 Impulse
4 Prosperity
4 Cadaverous Bloom
4 Squandered Resources
2 City of Solitude
1 Elven Cache
4 Natural Balance
3 Wall of Roots
2 Bad River
7 Forest
5 Island
6 Swamp
4 Undiscovered Paradise
10. Big Beef Land Destruction
1 Black Lotus
2 Jayemdae Tome
4 Juggernaut
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
1 Sol Ring
4 Dark Ritual
2 Demonic Hordes
1 Demonic Tutor
2 Drain Life
4 Hypnotic Specter
4 Juzam Djinn
4 Sinkhole
2 Terror
4 Bayou
4 Forest
1 Loa
7 Swamp
1 Berserk
4 Ice Storm
2 Instill Energy
1 Regrowth
Type: Type II/Standard
Lifetime: Spring 96 to fall 96
2. The Deck
Type: I/Classis
Lifetime: Spring 95 to Spring 96
3. Titania/Balance Deck 94 to Spring 95
Type: Type I/Classic
Lifetime: Fall
4. Kird Ape/Channelball
Type: 1.5/Classis
Lifetime: Spring 94 to Fall 95
5. Enhnamgeddon
Type: Type II/Standard
Lifetime: Fall 95 to Spring 97
6. The Rack/Balance Deck
Type: Type I/Classic
Lifetime: Winter 94 to Spring 95
7. Vise Age
Type: Type II/Standard
Lifetime: Summer 95 to Early 96
8. Bazaar Reanimator
Type: 1.5/Classic Restricted
Lifetime: Early 97 to present (= April 1998)
9. ProsBloom
Type: Mirage/Visions Constructed
Lifetime: Spring 97
10. Big Beef Land Destruction
Type: Type I/Classic
Lifetime: Early 94 to Spring 94
Secondly, to matters of discussion. Accuracy; what happens when a deck rotates out of the non-Eternal formats? Whenever's "Standards" isn't necessarily going to be the same Standard we're talking about year's after.
... and such is the naming issue of these deck articles.
The article's title is at the top of the page; it's the literal head of the article in both senses -- of page design/format, and of relative importance.
Article names, I'm not sure but I just put like Standard in 1996 or whatever on the page.
It might be easiest to just have each deck be named "Keeper" and "Dragonstorm" and then in the article say when it was played and in what format. This is also better for decks that were played in more than one format.
Oh hi by the way, i just found out we had a wiki. I'm going to be working on it in my spare time where my knowledge applies. (Eternal formats decks and history mostly)
That's viable, too; but it also means deck articles would perhaps tend to become particularly long, with or without "Magic theory" (simulations, mana curves, etc., and other stuff few understand).
Cool, good to know that the slightly neglected areas of the wiki have got more support.
Thanks for that.
Then why not just make pages for Mana Curve and stuff and link to them? Alternatively since a page on Mana Curve seems a bit... odd, Just make a page for Magic Theory with sections on mana curve and stuff, and then in an article about a deck that mentions mana curve have it redirect to the magic theory page's section on Mana Curve. (you can redirect like that can't you?)
The wiki's all about informing the uninformed isn't it?
It's a stylistic thing; decapitalise where possible, and also, it isn't essential that links be capitalised, as the first letter will be parsed as though it were capitalised anyway.
...
There is a mana curve page, and other similar pages, and perhaps it's worthwhile looking into 'informing the uninformed' (as quoted below, in this post).
There are numerous impediments and problems, however.
Yes, but it is the conveyer's responsibility to make it lucid and crystal clear for the intended audience.
When explaining "statistical analysis" and god-knows-what, it should be in language and register that even the newbiest of newbs can catch on.
... and more.
I think it's near-mandatory to include where you got a decklist/posted list from. The timespan and "claim to fame" is a must...but give credit for a list whenever and wherever possible.
Some decks should indeed have background but deck credit should be given
example: affinity (off the top of my head)
An aggro deck that relies on the mechanic "affinity" to hastily dump cards from the hand into play and kill with creatures. It debuted with the artifact-heavy block Mirrordin. The deck gained incredible popularity due to its efficiency of "fast kills" and cheap cost to build (economics/money-wise).
Affinity originally revolved around mirrordin's artifact lands, cheap artifact creatures (ornithopter, welding jar), and frogmites + myr enforcers who would come out at discounted mana costs via enough artifacts in play (abusing the affinity mechanic). Spells like Thirst for Knowledge and Thoughcast and Shrapnel blast backed up the creature base.
---blah blah...original "big man" was broodstar
---blah blah...ravager and deck changes
---blah blah....so good top cards got banned in STANDARD and EXT
---blah blah...today's vial affinity in vintage and legacy
*decklists and notable impacts on the deck sprinkled in
**cited/links to decklists and maybe MTG/SCG/etc articles
maybe including stats and crap like "controversy" like the real wiki
-my 2 cents...
And if I can, I call doing Slide's wiki --- my fav deck ever + ive played it since it came out (late 2002/03?)
EDIT: Only real issue is providing false information --- the reason teachers frown on wikipedia. It's an "open source" encyclopedia but it's susceptible to having people dump jank/wrong info into it. Wiki has things scanned and filtered. Im sure somebody/a team of people could "scan" and "filter" content and then get it posted (also helps grammar and read-ability)
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Things you need to discuss along with the content of the actual deck:
*Original designer(s) and the players who made the deck famous (not always the same people)
*Metagame in which that deck prospered
*Variants used by prominent players
*Issues with the deck vs. common strategies (or in the case of decks that were too overpowered, the actions WOTC or the community took to fix them)
*Major tournaments won or featuring these decks in the top 8
*What happened to the deck later (made obsolete by cards printed later in the block; adapted to Extended; morphed into something else)
That should bring you up to at least the standard set by Bethmo and if you wanted to add any strategy analysis, or unusual anecdotes involving the deck, that would make it a lot more readable.
few questions/comments:
*i want slide...and i can have it done adequately by thanksgiving or sooner!
1. do decks and posting on the wiki follow deck tag formatting? If I gotta post a decklist, im assuming we want to click the cards...or do we post plain text?
2. if we can't find players / key figures, can we just show links and/or names of lists (and obv give credit)?
3. post as many variants as possible or just key ones?
4. do we post that "so-and-so wrote this" for each section?
5. do we need permission or should we just post right to the wiki?
-if we need permission, who do we go to?
**sorry if this info is already somewhere...
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
In response to your other questions, i'd say:
2. Yes you can show links and/or names of lists and give credit
3. Post key variants if possible
4. Citing would be great but if citations aren't possible that's ok too.
5. I'd say no on permission, this hasn't been an issue, ever; so far.
Thanks for your questions
The biggest thing about this is (imo) the interest and help it brings. I remember I got my friend into MTG seriously by explaining different decks. And when some of us look back and see things like "THE ROCK" we can actually see its progression and evolution. The very cliche "B/G is not the rock....back in my day, we played XYZ." I'd love to help paint this picture
I'll find a solid way to write it out (more story and explanation than sheer list hopefully). I dont wanna just post lists and say "figure it out"
I am also interested in learning other decks and hope some prominent players in certain archetypes submit things (even if its 1-2 lists). For example, I know the basics of storm but would love for someone to really in-depth go over choices (esp T1 storm stuff or T1 keeper)
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
This might be obvious, but it seems to me like each key deck variant should also include the date and/or the sets that were legal at the time that the deck variant first appeared. For example, the Affinity deck when Mirrodin first became legal is an entirely different beast than the Affinity deck when Darksteel first became legal.
Also if Make your own standard ever becomes more prevalent, it might be desirable to eventually try to include a variety of decks for each block constructed format.
I agree with everything EXCEPT block decks...
Maybe it's just me -- but "block" is merely a more limited side to standard. Block is not like Legacy vs Vintage...and it's not like Standard vs EXT -- I dont consider block particularity important.
Edit: If the deck was a powerhouse in standard, there's really no need to post it's "block variant" as well....just my 2 cents
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod