I think organizing it by types is perfectly fine. Preferrable, actually. Breaking stuff down underneath those headings is probably good, though, for example "Target Creatures, Utility Creatures, Fat..." looks good and makes things easier to read.
A strategy breakdown and explanation of card choices should also come standard.
As Blue Warlock stated, that Volrath list is really annoying to look at.
It think it is also more relevant when you are playing tutors to group things by their actual type. There aren't tutors that say, "search your library for a removal card". They are more often, search for a sorcery, instant, artifact and then it does become a point to note how many of a given type of card you play and whether it is worth running a tutor for it.
It think it is also more relevant when you are playing tutors to group things by their actual type. There aren't tutors that say, "search your library for a removal card". They are more often, search for a sorcery, instant, artifact and then it does become a point to note how many of a given type of card you play and whether it is worth running a tutor for it.
If you just put Venser into any category you want, how is that useful at all for the person critiquing your deck? Then they have to either read the full deck list for him or CTRL + F. And if we are taking it down to that I don't see the point in organizing at all. If you are going to organize its useless if you aren't consistent, and there is no consistency in this method.
ok, again, I'm not talking about a shallow level of evaluation. if you're going into a decklist thinking "this deck is blue, I'll check if he's running venser, and if he's not then I'll suggest it"...just freaking CTRL + F it. That kind of shallow critique is often useless anyway, and doesn't require an understanding of the deck at all.
Organizing by type doesn't necessarily make it easier to find a particular card - that's not that point, and it's not what I'm saying. But if you want to evaluate the deck as a whole, and evaluate how well-balanced the functions of the deck are, it's an enormous time saver to have it categorized by function, and its how people ought to be building decks anyway. When I see a decklist categorized into simple types, I don't even bother, it's way too much work. It could take half an hour to determine the key components of a deck and break it down into them, if it's a complicated deck. It takes 3 seconds to CTRL + F some card. Besides, we've already got a top 35 for anyone who cares to look at.
It think it is also more relevant when you are playing tutors to group things by their actual type. There aren't tutors that say, "search your library for a removal card". They are more often, search for a sorcery, instant, artifact and then it does become a point to note how many of a given type of card you play and whether it is worth running a tutor for it.
well I, for one, usually use at least a couple transmuters in any blue or black decks I make. So should I also group them by cmc?
Yes, there are situations where knowing types is important. That's obvious. But the vast majority of the time in deckbuilding, function is more important than form. If you're deciding on tutors, each tutor really has to be considered individually. Sorting by type won't necessarily make it any easier.
I don't really like complicated break-downs. Why not just *gasp* write a paragraph or two explaining what your deck does or wants to do? Some generals are obvious (we all know what Rofellos, Zur, Arcum, Azami, Rafiq aim for), but others are more unusual, and might require some elaboration.
I always do this, even though my decks are known "archetypes." (Scion, Azami, Rafiq) Because as well known as they are, not EVERYONE knows what they do or how to play them, and when they click on the link in the database, I figure they'd want a quick rundown.
I don't really like complicated break-downs. Why not just *gasp* write a paragraph or two explaining what your deck does or wants to do? Some generals are obvious (we all know what Rofellos, Zur, Arcum, Azami, Rafiq aim for), but others are more unusual, and might require some elaboration.
I always do this, even though my decks are known "archetypes." (Scion, Azami, Rafiq) Because as well known as they are, not EVERYONE knows what they do or how to play them, and when they click on the link in the database, I figure they'd want a quick rundown.
I get the feeling no one is reading anything except the OP so this is probably a waste of time, but listing by type is not just an issue of helping to explain what the deck does, although it does help, and actually seeing the balance of function does help illustrate the relative importance of each function.
But it's also important for critique because the relative important might be way out of whack - A deck that claims to "suspend nukes and then fatties with jhoira to clear the field and attack while it's clear" seems good enough, but if all the fatties are in one place you might notice that there are only 3 of them. Otherwise you have to go through the entire deck to figure that out, or at least all the creatures. Oh, but wait - there's a bunch of tutors, so you can actually easily get at least one of those every game. Isn't it a good thing those tutors were kept separate from all the other instants and sorceries that had totally different purposes?
There's more to a deck than including good cards. it's about balance, and it's way easier to see when they're divided well.
I get the feeling no one is reading anything except the OP so this is probably a waste of time, but listing by type is not just an issue of helping to explain what the deck does, although it does help, and actually seeing the balance of function does help illustrate the relative importance of each function.
But it's also important for critique because the relative important might be way out of whack - A deck that claims to "suspend nukes and then fatties with jhoira to clear the field and attack while it's clear" seems good enough, but if all the fatties are in one place you might notice that there are only 3 of them. Otherwise you have to go through the entire deck to figure that out, or at least all the creatures. Oh, but wait - there's a bunch of tutors, so you can actually easily get at least one of those every game. Isn't it a good thing those tutors were kept separate from all the other instants and sorceries that had totally different purposes?
There's more to a deck than including good cards. it's about balance, and it's way easier to see when they're divided well.
I have read every post in this thread and I would assume most others have as well as they have posted here more than once.
If you want to get right down to it, no classification system is going to be any less arbitrary so whats the point? Why use the time to construct some kind of classification specific to each and every deck. I will tell you from a personal standpoint that when I click a thread asking for help on a deck, if they have it listed in some random order with arbitrary headings, I just hit the back button. It, to me, is a lack of organization. Someone could theoretically put every single card under its own heading as there has to be a justification for running any given card.
To me, its like taking our scientific classification of animals and throwing it out the window because it doesn't describe well enough because you feel you want to group together the animals that mate for life. Its completely subjective and will lead to further confusion when others would have classified a card in your deck as something else. An artifact is an artifact to everyone, but as stated before, Venser can be many different things to different people.
In closing, I say we stick to the classification system already laid out for us.
I have read every post in this thread and I would assume most others have as well as they have posted here more than once.
If you want to get right down to it, no classification system is going to be any less arbitrary so whats the point? Why use the time to construct some kind of classification specific to each and every deck. I will tell you from a personal standpoint that when I click a thread asking for help on a deck, if they have it listed in some random order with arbitrary headings, I just hit the back button. It, to me, is a lack of organization. Someone could theoretically put every single card under its own heading as there has to be a justification for running any given card.
To me, its like taking our scientific classification of animals and throwing it out the window because it doesn't describe well enough because you feel you want to group together the animals that mate for life. Its completely subjective and will lead to further confusion when others would have classified a card in your deck as something else. An artifact is an artifact to everyone, but as stated before, Venser can be many different things to different people.
In closing, I say we stick to the classification system already laid out for us.
if function categories don't help you, then I guess that's your opinion. Of course, some people aren't very good at deciding on the main categories of their deck (it's a lot easier to do it before, rather than after).
I'm not suggesting that cards should be reclassified by function. but within a decklist, determining a deck's balance takes an eternity without the cards in function categories. If you're just planning on suggesting a few specific cards, then function categories might not help, but they won't hurt, either.
And who "layed it out for us"? A card's cmc is just as integral a part of the card as its type. Same for color. So what's wrong with organizing it by, say, cmc?
Regardless, I don't see how organizing it into card types helps whatsoever. Give me one good reason for sorting it that way that can't be accomplished by CTRL + F.
if function categories don't help you, then I guess that's your opinion. Of course, some people aren't very good at deciding on the main categories of their deck (it's a lot easier to do it before, rather than after).
I'm not suggesting that cards should be reclassified by function. but within a decklist, determining a deck's balance takes an eternity without the cards in function categories. If you're just planning on suggesting a few specific cards, then function categories might not help, but they won't hurt, either.
And who "layed it out for us"? A card's cmc is just as integral a part of the card as its type. Same for color. So what's wrong with organizing it by, say, cmc?
Regardless, I don't see how organizing it into card types helps whatsoever. Give me one good reason for sorting it that way that can't be accomplished by CTRL + F.
Laziness maybe. I hate my find function because it doesn't go the next by hitting the enter key.
Honestly, I think the deck lists are just a point of reference. Nobody on this forum could or should be able to get away with just posting a decklist. People really need to write out some explanations and what type of help they are looking for. I feel that any kind of classification doesn't really matter a great deal because even if someone needs help with finding more of a certain type of card (creature steal effects in Stoutarm for example), and they classify all they play together, you still have to look at the rest of the deck to see if any one of your suggestions would be better than the others in the context of the given deck. An example of this would be if I played Sunforger in said Brion deck, it could make a Blind with Anger or Disharmony better than Flash Conscription or Word of Seizing.
I still think writing a paragraph or two describing what the deck does, or what you WANT it to do, leads to better help and criticism than trying to explain what the deck does through some subjective category breakdown. You're going to write anyway, so might as well keep it all there instead of coming up with a convoluted category system that makes your list hard on the eyes.
It can be done, but it's probably not necessary. People should describe the deck first, explain some of their card choices, then give the list at the BOTTOM of the post (primer style). This I think leads to good discussion and deckbuilding advice (because I assume you post your deck here for ideas and commentary, not just to show off).
Laziness maybe. I hate my find function because it doesn't go the next by hitting the enter key.
Honestly, I think the deck lists are just a point of reference. Nobody on this forum could or should be able to get away with just posting a decklist. People really need to write out some explanations and what type of help they are looking for. I feel that any kind of classification doesn't really matter a great deal because even if someone needs help with finding more of a certain type of card (creature steal effects in Stoutarm for example), and they classify all they play together, you still have to look at the rest of the deck to see if any one of your suggestions would be better than the others in the context of the given deck. An example of this would be if I played Sunforger in said Brion deck, it could make a Blind with Anger or Disharmony better than Flash Conscription or Word of Seizing.
Well, of course I agree that a description is important too (maybe optional if it's a very well-established archetype, but it never hurts). I also usually include a list of combos to clarify why some cards are chosen instead of others. I didn't say that sorting by role is going to make your deck perfectly clear or anything, but it is a good way to consider which cards to use when you're building a deck, based on how you want it to balance. If you just do it by type, you might not realize that you've included a ton of removal without very many threats, because the removal cards looked better when you were comparing them side-by-side. If you decide in advance "I'll probably need 10 removal" - or even divide it further between mass removal, targeted, artifact/enchantment, land, etc. - you'll end up with a deck that plays a lot better.
My point is mostly that there's nothing to lose by posting the list ordered by function. it's slightly, slightly harder to find cards, but without it, it's almost impossible to critique the deck build and the balance as a whole.
I still think writing a paragraph or two describing what the deck does, or what you WANT it to do, leads to better help and criticism than trying to explain what the deck does through some subjective category breakdown. You're going to write anyway, so might as well keep it all there instead of coming up with a convoluted category system that makes your list hard on the eyes.
It can be done, but it's probably not necessary. People should describe the deck first, explain some of their card choices, then give the list at the BOTTOM of the post (primer style). This I think leads to good discussion and deckbuilding advice (because I assume you post your deck here for ideas and commentary, not just to show off).
See above. Of course separating by function is just in addition to a good description. But sorting by function does something that a description does not do - illustrate the balance and importance of the objectives of your deck. And honestly, I find myself most annoyed with decklists that are just massive lists of cards, much more than one divided into, say, 5-10 categories, for the same reason that books without paragraphs suck to read. But I suppose that's a matter of preference.
And yes, of course I always hope for ideas and commentary =/ right now my decklists are pretty dead though. No one commented at all on my Merieke, and that's easily the most fun of all the EDH decks I've built. meh.
I think that Aitrus's post has merit, especially to newcomers to EDH. I've been browsing decks for a couple weeks, and I certainly don't automatically see the links between cards or the reason for them being in each deck, and 70+ unique cards in a deck is a lot to look through when you're not used to playing a singleton format.
That being said, I don't think we can simply stop posting decklists sorted by actual card type, because it's the standard method of posting them, and it allows readers to quickly determine the rough balance of the deck in terms of creatures:spells:artifacts/enchantments:lands, etc. I decided, in my first post on Salvation ever, to post both a standard deck list and one modeled after Aitrus's listing in the OP, because it makes it easier for me to see the major elements of the deck, and give an idea of how it should probably play.
it allows readers to quickly determine the rough balance of the deck in terms of creatures:spells:artifacts/enchantments:lands, etc.
The real question being, is knowing that balance meaningful at all? I'm not interested in their total artifact/sorcery count, but I am interested in how much accel they have. If Kodama's Reach and Darksteel Ingot are under an Accel/Fixing header than I'm set. I'm not interested in their creature count so much as I want to know how many finishers they have. Boneshredder, Persecute, and Phyrexian Furnace can go under a Disruption header and I'll be happy. Yes, many cards fit multiple categories but it's not to hard to sort through them when it's broken down more (e.g. I'd put AoD and Reiver Demon in a Creatures/Beatsticks header despite how disruptive they are).
Yes, many cards fit multiple categories but it's not to hard to sort through them when it's broken down more (e.g. I'd put AoD and Reiver Demon in a Creatures/Beatsticks header despite how disruptive they are).
I'd say this is the primary reason that categorizing by card type, instead of by purpose, is useful (or, ideally, doing both). As mentioned earlier in the thread, these purpose listings are subjective, as opposed to objective, and based on the person, may belong to different categories. For example, I'd put Reiver Demon in the "Mass Removal" category instead of as a beat-stick/fatty, because that's how I'd intend to play him.
I definitely see your point, though, and that's why I think, especially for EDH, having two lists (objective and subjective listings) are appropriate.
I'm going to weigh in here. One of the really excellent things that came out of the last (not latest) forum shuffle and the creation of "Primers" was that for that person's deck and their vision of that deck you had the excruciating detail of the entire list including overall strategy, card by card explainations, combos, synergies etc etc. That's not a post, it's a labour of love and very few of us go to that length to write about our decks, especially if they are in the first stages.
I could write a fair bit about my new Allies deck but it's totally unfinished and honestly "Play allies and hope some cool stuff happens" is not really what everyone is looking for in a deck explaination on here. It's what I'm aiming for when I play the deck though.
I have 5 active decks (soon to be 6! w00t!) and to do another 4 extensive write-ups, would be very, very time consuming for what could be very little return except the personal pleasure I get from explaining my deck in it's tiniest detail.
the problem is... not everyone thinks the same way other people do, as made obvious by this thread alone, and as such categories off the norm fail to support the POINT of a deck list in the first place... quick, standard listing of cards. You wanna toss Reiver Demon into fatties, well to me he has always gone into mass removal (when building a pre-emptive decklist i do actually utilize the OP's form of listing) so by that example alone, i'm looking for the wrong things in the wrong places.
The LAST thing anyone should be reading is the decklist. Its just a jumble of cards without some context behind it, not to mention a waste of time. So by the time anyone gets to the list they should ALREADY have an understanding of the general purpose as well as some strat/combos. To that end the list serves no purpose but for quick reference... and frankly trying to break a STANDARD formatting to be more "creative" or whatever term you guys wanna put on it, your taking away the usefulness of a standard format. I can't quickly refrence anything because now i HAVE to try and break down what i'm looking for by what someone else thinks. Ctrl+F functionality has always been poor and arguably more work than alot of people what to put into it.
If i choose to glance over someone's ob nixilis deck and i want to see if they have crucible of worlds my first instinct is to simply scroll to the artifacts and start looking alphabetically down the list. If that list is a jumble maybe its under generic artifacts, maybe its under recursion, maybe they put it under landfall, maybe its under combos hell maybe its under Misc. Now i've read their work and KNOW that they want to abuse ob nixilis' landfall ability, so its important for me to ensure that they have crucible on their lists but damn, its taking me even more time to locate it. I mean really NORMALLY its under Artifacts and towards the top of that list... simple quick and easy.
You guys seem to think that being fancy is what makes stuff stand out, but in reality its jacking with a standard quick and easy formatting system thats been around for a while and for no REAL reason at all, because if you need the combo's explained to you they should be in the thread itself.
I'm a firm believer that every deck thread SHOULD be a primer in and of itself. Decks with the same general can often have very different lists that play different games and anyone with enough pride to post said list up here should give their deck a loving treatment. People tend to want to help people serious about a deck more than they do about people who half-ass things up there then say "suggestions?"
I own a comic shop and we used to organize our lists by relevance, but it's too confusing and not very precise. We would occasionally miss things because we'd check "X-Men" when it was in the "Wolverine" section or something silly like that. Now everything is alphabetical by publisher and it's so much easier. I think the poster above who said people should just be writing a short "primer" on the deck is a better solution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RG Playing undercosted burn and over-powered creatures since 1994. RG
"I finally figured out what One With Nothing is good for!" says Paul. "Oh yeah? What?" comes the reply. "It comboes with Tarmogoyf!"
True story...
I think people should be able to post however they want, it's up to the reader whether they want to give any advice/comments on the deck.
This seems to be pretty evident. I wasn't sure how to frame my commentary, I just found that often I would open a decklist and have nothing to say about it because it wasn't immediately obvious to me what the deck was trying to do.
I've also found for my own purposes, by trying to build decks with a couple of themes in mind it keeps them from devolving into goodstuff.dec. So I wanted to throw that out there as a thought and just see if people agreed or not.
Not 'bad' in the strictest sense, but certainly drab and uninspiring. I do like to keep things interesting after all, and having too many 'auto-includes' for each color is an easy way for things to get stagnant.
I, for one, like to think of EDH as a refuge from netdecking constructed formats.
I don't want to be stuck seeing the same crap over and over again every game in a casual format - there's no need for it. Don't worry about winning the game - you won't get a trophy or get laid. Worry about playing interesting cards and finding more amusing ways to try to win than mindslaver lock.
I have to say i find combo uninspiriing and boring... its a deck built unto itself with nothing but its own cogs to turn... good stuff isn't just adding in everything from the top 35 list. Hell those games are far more entertaining to me... you have to build and balance threats with answers and games dont always play out the same.
I have to say i find combo uninspiriing and boring... its a deck built unto itself with nothing but its own cogs to turn... good stuff isn't just adding in everything from the top 35 list. Hell those games are far more entertaining to me... you have to build and balance threats with answers and games dont always play out the same.
I agree that the games with goodstuff.dec aren't necessarily boring - they can be, but so can plenty of other archetypes. But what I will say, and what I think threstless meant, is that it's very boring to build decks and evaluate decks built with the goodstuff.dec archetype.
A strategy breakdown and explanation of card choices should also come standard.
As Blue Warlock stated, that Volrath list is really annoying to look at.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
well put.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
ok, again, I'm not talking about a shallow level of evaluation. if you're going into a decklist thinking "this deck is blue, I'll check if he's running venser, and if he's not then I'll suggest it"...just freaking CTRL + F it. That kind of shallow critique is often useless anyway, and doesn't require an understanding of the deck at all.
Organizing by type doesn't necessarily make it easier to find a particular card - that's not that point, and it's not what I'm saying. But if you want to evaluate the deck as a whole, and evaluate how well-balanced the functions of the deck are, it's an enormous time saver to have it categorized by function, and its how people ought to be building decks anyway. When I see a decklist categorized into simple types, I don't even bother, it's way too much work. It could take half an hour to determine the key components of a deck and break it down into them, if it's a complicated deck. It takes 3 seconds to CTRL + F some card. Besides, we've already got a top 35 for anyone who cares to look at.
well I, for one, usually use at least a couple transmuters in any blue or black decks I make. So should I also group them by cmc?
Yes, there are situations where knowing types is important. That's obvious. But the vast majority of the time in deckbuilding, function is more important than form. If you're deciding on tutors, each tutor really has to be considered individually. Sorting by type won't necessarily make it any easier.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
I always do this, even though my decks are known "archetypes." (Scion, Azami, Rafiq) Because as well known as they are, not EVERYONE knows what they do or how to play them, and when they click on the link in the database, I figure they'd want a quick rundown.
I get the feeling no one is reading anything except the OP so this is probably a waste of time, but listing by type is not just an issue of helping to explain what the deck does, although it does help, and actually seeing the balance of function does help illustrate the relative importance of each function.
But it's also important for critique because the relative important might be way out of whack - A deck that claims to "suspend nukes and then fatties with jhoira to clear the field and attack while it's clear" seems good enough, but if all the fatties are in one place you might notice that there are only 3 of them. Otherwise you have to go through the entire deck to figure that out, or at least all the creatures. Oh, but wait - there's a bunch of tutors, so you can actually easily get at least one of those every game. Isn't it a good thing those tutors were kept separate from all the other instants and sorceries that had totally different purposes?
There's more to a deck than including good cards. it's about balance, and it's way easier to see when they're divided well.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
I have read every post in this thread and I would assume most others have as well as they have posted here more than once.
If you want to get right down to it, no classification system is going to be any less arbitrary so whats the point? Why use the time to construct some kind of classification specific to each and every deck. I will tell you from a personal standpoint that when I click a thread asking for help on a deck, if they have it listed in some random order with arbitrary headings, I just hit the back button. It, to me, is a lack of organization. Someone could theoretically put every single card under its own heading as there has to be a justification for running any given card.
To me, its like taking our scientific classification of animals and throwing it out the window because it doesn't describe well enough because you feel you want to group together the animals that mate for life. Its completely subjective and will lead to further confusion when others would have classified a card in your deck as something else. An artifact is an artifact to everyone, but as stated before, Venser can be many different things to different people.
In closing, I say we stick to the classification system already laid out for us.
if function categories don't help you, then I guess that's your opinion. Of course, some people aren't very good at deciding on the main categories of their deck (it's a lot easier to do it before, rather than after).
I'm not suggesting that cards should be reclassified by function. but within a decklist, determining a deck's balance takes an eternity without the cards in function categories. If you're just planning on suggesting a few specific cards, then function categories might not help, but they won't hurt, either.
And who "layed it out for us"? A card's cmc is just as integral a part of the card as its type. Same for color. So what's wrong with organizing it by, say, cmc?
Regardless, I don't see how organizing it into card types helps whatsoever. Give me one good reason for sorting it that way that can't be accomplished by CTRL + F.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
Laziness maybe. I hate my find function because it doesn't go the next by hitting the enter key.
Honestly, I think the deck lists are just a point of reference. Nobody on this forum could or should be able to get away with just posting a decklist. People really need to write out some explanations and what type of help they are looking for. I feel that any kind of classification doesn't really matter a great deal because even if someone needs help with finding more of a certain type of card (creature steal effects in Stoutarm for example), and they classify all they play together, you still have to look at the rest of the deck to see if any one of your suggestions would be better than the others in the context of the given deck. An example of this would be if I played Sunforger in said Brion deck, it could make a Blind with Anger or Disharmony better than Flash Conscription or Word of Seizing.
It can be done, but it's probably not necessary. People should describe the deck first, explain some of their card choices, then give the list at the BOTTOM of the post (primer style). This I think leads to good discussion and deckbuilding advice (because I assume you post your deck here for ideas and commentary, not just to show off).
Well, of course I agree that a description is important too (maybe optional if it's a very well-established archetype, but it never hurts). I also usually include a list of combos to clarify why some cards are chosen instead of others. I didn't say that sorting by role is going to make your deck perfectly clear or anything, but it is a good way to consider which cards to use when you're building a deck, based on how you want it to balance. If you just do it by type, you might not realize that you've included a ton of removal without very many threats, because the removal cards looked better when you were comparing them side-by-side. If you decide in advance "I'll probably need 10 removal" - or even divide it further between mass removal, targeted, artifact/enchantment, land, etc. - you'll end up with a deck that plays a lot better.
My point is mostly that there's nothing to lose by posting the list ordered by function. it's slightly, slightly harder to find cards, but without it, it's almost impossible to critique the deck build and the balance as a whole.
See above. Of course separating by function is just in addition to a good description. But sorting by function does something that a description does not do - illustrate the balance and importance of the objectives of your deck. And honestly, I find myself most annoyed with decklists that are just massive lists of cards, much more than one divided into, say, 5-10 categories, for the same reason that books without paragraphs suck to read. But I suppose that's a matter of preference.
And yes, of course I always hope for ideas and commentary =/ right now my decklists are pretty dead though. No one commented at all on my Merieke, and that's easily the most fun of all the EDH decks I've built. meh.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
That being said, I don't think we can simply stop posting decklists sorted by actual card type, because it's the standard method of posting them, and it allows readers to quickly determine the rough balance of the deck in terms of creatures:spells:artifacts/enchantments:lands, etc. I decided, in my first post on Salvation ever, to post both a standard deck list and one modeled after Aitrus's listing in the OP, because it makes it easier for me to see the major elements of the deck, and give an idea of how it should probably play.
Commander
BBB - Erebos, MBC
GB - Glissa, Recursion Valuetown
UB - Wrexial/Phenax Mill
UBR - Nekusar, Mindwheeler
R - Feldon, God of Reanimation(?!?!)
The real question being, is knowing that balance meaningful at all? I'm not interested in their total artifact/sorcery count, but I am interested in how much accel they have. If Kodama's Reach and Darksteel Ingot are under an Accel/Fixing header than I'm set. I'm not interested in their creature count so much as I want to know how many finishers they have. Boneshredder, Persecute, and Phyrexian Furnace can go under a Disruption header and I'll be happy. Yes, many cards fit multiple categories but it's not to hard to sort through them when it's broken down more (e.g. I'd put AoD and Reiver Demon in a Creatures/Beatsticks header despite how disruptive they are).
I'd say this is the primary reason that categorizing by card type, instead of by purpose, is useful (or, ideally, doing both). As mentioned earlier in the thread, these purpose listings are subjective, as opposed to objective, and based on the person, may belong to different categories. For example, I'd put Reiver Demon in the "Mass Removal" category instead of as a beat-stick/fatty, because that's how I'd intend to play him.
I definitely see your point, though, and that's why I think, especially for EDH, having two lists (objective and subjective listings) are appropriate.
Commander
BBB - Erebos, MBC
GB - Glissa, Recursion Valuetown
UB - Wrexial/Phenax Mill
UBR - Nekusar, Mindwheeler
R - Feldon, God of Reanimation(?!?!)
I could write a fair bit about my new Allies deck but it's totally unfinished and honestly "Play allies and hope some cool stuff happens" is not really what everyone is looking for in a deck explaination on here. It's what I'm aiming for when I play the deck though.
I have 5 active decks (soon to be 6! w00t!) and to do another 4 extensive write-ups, would be very, very time consuming for what could be very little return except the personal pleasure I get from explaining my deck in it's tiniest detail.
I fully support anyone who does it though!
Commander BLOG: The Crazy 99
Gonti ; Sissay
The LAST thing anyone should be reading is the decklist. Its just a jumble of cards without some context behind it, not to mention a waste of time. So by the time anyone gets to the list they should ALREADY have an understanding of the general purpose as well as some strat/combos. To that end the list serves no purpose but for quick reference... and frankly trying to break a STANDARD formatting to be more "creative" or whatever term you guys wanna put on it, your taking away the usefulness of a standard format. I can't quickly refrence anything because now i HAVE to try and break down what i'm looking for by what someone else thinks. Ctrl+F functionality has always been poor and arguably more work than alot of people what to put into it.
If i choose to glance over someone's ob nixilis deck and i want to see if they have crucible of worlds my first instinct is to simply scroll to the artifacts and start looking alphabetically down the list. If that list is a jumble maybe its under generic artifacts, maybe its under recursion, maybe they put it under landfall, maybe its under combos hell maybe its under Misc. Now i've read their work and KNOW that they want to abuse ob nixilis' landfall ability, so its important for me to ensure that they have crucible on their lists but damn, its taking me even more time to locate it. I mean really NORMALLY its under Artifacts and towards the top of that list... simple quick and easy.
You guys seem to think that being fancy is what makes stuff stand out, but in reality its jacking with a standard quick and easy formatting system thats been around for a while and for no REAL reason at all, because if you need the combo's explained to you they should be in the thread itself.
I'm a firm believer that every deck thread SHOULD be a primer in and of itself. Decks with the same general can often have very different lists that play different games and anyone with enough pride to post said list up here should give their deck a loving treatment. People tend to want to help people serious about a deck more than they do about people who half-ass things up there then say "suggestions?"
RG Playing undercosted burn and over-powered creatures since 1994. RG
"I finally figured out what One With Nothing is good for!" says Paul. "Oh yeah? What?" comes the reply. "It comboes with Tarmogoyf!"
True story...
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6236256#post6236256
This seems to be pretty evident. I wasn't sure how to frame my commentary, I just found that often I would open a decklist and have nothing to say about it because it wasn't immediately obvious to me what the deck was trying to do.
I've also found for my own purposes, by trying to build decks with a couple of themes in mind it keeps them from devolving into goodstuff.dec. So I wanted to throw that out there as a thought and just see if people agreed or not.
i'm sorry but goodstuff.dec isn't a bad thing
I don't want to be stuck seeing the same crap over and over again every game in a casual format - there's no need for it. Don't worry about winning the game - you won't get a trophy or get laid. Worry about playing interesting cards and finding more amusing ways to try to win than mindslaver lock.
Although, it does play some rather interesting tech to work its magic.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
I agree that the games with goodstuff.dec aren't necessarily boring - they can be, but so can plenty of other archetypes. But what I will say, and what I think threstless meant, is that it's very boring to build decks and evaluate decks built with the goodstuff.dec archetype.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR