I'm a fan of how the lads at the source does it (they tier by deck % representation for each month from all tournaments). Not a fan of segregating by archetype due to lack of consensus on what decks constitutes what archetypes, etc. Ideally you have 8-10 decks be "proven" since they say have more than 8% representation in the meta (arbitrary % to be determined), and so on. That way, fringe decks that actually steadily perform and rise get appropriately tiered rather than be subject to bias analysis of how good/viable/consistent it actually is
I'm a fan of how the lads at the source does it (they tier by deck % representation for each month from all tournaments). Not a fan of segregating by archetype due to lack of consensus on what decks constitutes what archetypes, etc. Ideally you have 8-10 decks be "proven" since they say have more than 8% representation in the meta (arbitrary % to be determined), and so on. That way, fringe decks that actually steadily perform and rise get appropriately tiered rather than be subject to bias analysis of how good/viable/consistent it actually is
That is what we are currently doing, and for reasons stated before we cannot keep on doing it as it misrepresents the format.
I think you should just do it Torpf, or at least get the ball rolling with community polls on which decks should be where.
I mean look at my current home. Jeskai 'Control' it covers pretty much any strategy from hard control, to tempo/aggro, to kiki/resto and anything in between. Its all over the place and a purge is needed.
Ok so here is what is going to happen. There is a lot of support for option #2 in the OP, but there is also already pushback about how to classify decks. The first reasonable starting point to classify decks will be with a 5 class system of Aggro & Tempo, Midrange, Control, Combo, Big Mana, with the potential of a 6th being Prison (or Resource Denial) for Lantern, D&T, Ponza, etc.. Beyond that, we can avoid classifying decks with Option #1 or a non-classified Option #2, but they would require a cutoff. Below I am going to outline how decks will be sorted into each category (budget omitted), and then we will run a trial run of the new system for about one week before re-evaluating.
We are going to try out Option #2 first since that was the popular choice. Proven decks will be broken down as follows:
Decks that are definitely getting removed are: Loam Pox should be merged with the Assault Loam thread. Since it can't it will probably be archived and talk redirected to the other thread. UR Ascension Storm never recovered from the bans. Sultai Delirium Was this ever a deck anyway?
This is the breakdown of every deck that is currently "proven in the format" on the forums. Decks have been put into archetype classifications based on their primary gameplan. Yes I know Vizier Company is not just a combo deck, but it is a combo deck before anything else. Yes I know Blue Moon/UR Breach is not just a control deck, but it is a control deck before it is a Through the Breach combo deck. Yes I know UB Mill is not a traditional aggro deck, but it aggros your library the same way Burn aggros your life total. etc...
If you have a glaring problem with the current classification of a deck, please comment below with an in-depth description of why it should be somewhere else and shouldn't be in its current spot, accounting for the main gameplan of the deck and the most standardized meaning of Aggro/Tempo/Midrange/Control/Combo/Big Mana that you can think of. Likewise, if you think a deck should or shouldn't be in the proven section then please also speak for/against it backed up by results and facts.
Again, because this method of organizing the forums was the most sought after we will be starting with it first. We can try with catagories first, then drop to none if needed. If it goes extremely well then we will stick with it. If it doesn't then we will look at Option #1 as stated in the OP. The current look for that method is a Proven section with all GP/PT top 32 decks in the last six months. An Established section with all other decks with a global presence in the format at least at the PTQ/FNM level, and Developing will stay as is (currently Deck Creation).
For the most part I agree with the list, but it seems rather odd that Grixis Death's Shadow is listed in Aggro, but Jund Death's Shadow is listed in Midrange. As far as I can tell from what I've seen on camera, both decks have the same strategy and about the same amount of set up. Is there a key difference I'm unaware of that somehow makes GDS significantly faster than JDS?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
For the most part I agree with the list, but it seems rather odd that Grixis Death's Shadow is listed in Aggro, but Jund Death's Shadow is listed in Midrange. As far as I can tell from what I've seen on camera, both decks have the same strategy and about the same amount of set up. Is there a key difference I'm unaware of that somehow makes GDS significantly faster than JDS?
Whoops no, they should have both been in the Aggro & Tempo part. Fixed.
I actually have a few opinions (mostly objections) on the classifications proposed here. If anyone personally pilots these decks and disagrees, feel free to correct me. I cannot say I've played all of these decks, but I've played Modern long enough to be able to speak my mind with confidence and knowledge of the format.
First, Aggro and Tempo should not be grouped together. While I agree that Tempo and Aggro do share similarities, and that Tempo should be grouped with another archetype, I think Midrange and Tempo is the more appropriate grouping. Aggro decks want to dump all of their resources into the ending the game as fast as possible. This is why we typically think of Aggro decks as playing many cards that all share some quality, such as Burn playing as much direct damage as possible, Merfolk playing multiple lords, or Affinity looking to abuse artifact interactions. This isn't always synergy, such as in Merfolk or Affinity's case: it is all of the cards coming together for a cohesive gameplan. Burn and Zoo have little to no synergy in their deck at all, but every card in the deck is looking to drop the opponent's life total as fast as possible. Compare this to Midrange. Midrange decks are looking to disrupt the opponent, either with hand attack, removal, or sometimes even counterspells, and then start playing the best threats possible and grind card advantage. This is why we generally refer to Midrange decks to want to two-for-one the opponent, or at the very least one-for-one with the caveat of winning with a single threat or two because they are of the highest quality. Now let's breakdown Tempo. Tempo decks want to stick a threat on the board and then disrupt their opponent so they cannot remove it. This is why Tempo plays cheap threats and cheap removal/counters. Isn't that just the reverse of Midrange? Putting it simply, Midrange plays disruption and then threats to keep their opponent on the backfoot. Tempo plays their threat first and then disruption to force their opponent on to the backfoot. The two archetypes are very similar when you sit down and analyze them critically. While they are not the same archetype, they are two archetypes built upon being in the middle ground between Aggro and Control. True, they have many differences as well. Midrange typically plays the best cards on each part of the curve, whereas Tempo is typically using precision timing to get the most advantage out of their cards. Tempo also tends to be more aggressive than Midrange. Despite these differences, however, I believe Midrange to be more similar to Tempo than Aggro. Both are generally looking to be disruptive (more on that later), and while Aggro can and sometimes will play disruption, it isn't a core element of the strategy like it is with Tempo and the stereotypical Modern Midrange deck. While the two are certainly different, their gameplans align more closely together than Aggro and Tempo. As such, I believe Death's Shadow, Infect, Delver variants, Faeries, Bant Spirits, and Eternal Command should be ported over with Midrange to make the sections Aggro and Midrange&Tempo. Furthermore, I also believe BW Tokens, Bant Eldrazi, and RUG should also move over with the Tempo decks. Looking at their decklists, it becomes apparent that they do not share the same qualities that most Aggro decks have. They are not trying to end the game as quickly as possible, and they are not dedicating every card in the deck to doing so. When you look at an Aggro decklist, you see that they are built for speed. These three decks are not doing that. While the RUG link here links to Monkey Grow, or Temur Delver, this logic should apply to whatever RUG Midrange deck arises with the BBE and JTMS unbans as well. Bant Eldrazi is certainly not as disruptive as, say, Jund and Abzan. However, it is built to jam threats that are superior to everything else that would be cast at that point in the game. Similarly, Midrange decks want to play the best cards at every spot on the curve. Thus, despite it not following the stereotypical model of hand attack and Dark Confidant, it is trying to win through superior card quality: the defining factor of a Midrange deck. There's a reason people like Todd Stevens and Ben Friedman talk about it being a midrange/ramp deck, not an aggro deck. While these are dated, even modern-day decklists bear little resemblance to an aggro deck, if any at all. As for BW Tokens, this is coming from the personal experience of someone who played it for roughly a year: the deck is wholeheartedly a Midrange deck. No Aggro deck is looking to start playing its creatures on turn three and four and grind card advantage with Lingering Souls and Bitterblossom. We even had discussion in the thread about how it isn't an Aggro deck. In fact, I remember when the current primer went up and me, along with other posters, heavily contested how the primer defined it as an "aggro-swarm deck." It's literally my first post on the primer thread.
Second, "Big Mana" is mostly comprised of decks that tangentially make large amounts of mana, but ultimately fall into other categories. While making large amounts of mana with ramp is a defining factor of these decks, I do not believe it should be the defining factor for all of them. For example, Mono-Blue Tron is a Tron deck. However, unlike other Tron decks, it wants to play a more traditional Control game. It isn't looking to turbo out Karns. It isn't even seeking to assemble Tron on turn three. It wants to use it's large swaths of mana to cast large artifact creatures and abuse things like Spell Burts or the Mindslaver + Academy Ruins lock. If anything, I believe this deck is far more of a Control deck than a Big Mana deck. If I was a new Modern player looking to read up on Blue Tron, I know I would look under the Control heading. The deck is referred to as a Control deck for a reason, and while it is abusing mana advantage, I don't believe that defines it in the same way that it does for Gx Tron. As such, I believe that Mono-U Tron, along with the similar UW Tron (another deck I have experience with personally and can attest to being a Control deck) should be moved with Control because that is the go-to classification when many people think of them. In a similar vein, I do not believe Titanshift and Amulet Titan belong with Big Mana. Both of these decks are combo decks, and while they also can generate a lot of mana, it isn't necessarily because they need it to cast all of their spells. In Titanshift's case, the only high-CMC card in the deck is Primeval Titan, and while that is a choice ramp target, it isn't looking to abuse all of the mana it has. In reality, the deck wants to abuse having many lands, not having a lot of mana. True, it can use all of its mana with Kessig Wolf Run. But it isn't a deck that primarily wants to cast large threats ahead of the curve. It just wants more lands in play than it should so it can kill with a turn four Scapeshift. It doesn't care about the insane mana ramp it generates so much as that it just has lands in play. Amulet Titan is a deck that realistically could fit into Big Mana, so perhaps I'm just being pedantic with this one. I think that the core aspect of Big Mana is that it wants to always be doing something with the mana advantage that it gets, and is dedicated to utilizing that mana advantage. Unlike Titanshift, Amulet Titan actually does do this a lot of the time. It's constantly digging for lands and playing multiple lands in a single turn. However, I think that the given gameplan of the deck is to assemble a critical mass of lands, Primetime, and Slayer's Stronghold and/or Sunhome, Fortress of the Legion: In other words, a combo that typically ends the game. I think that, given this gameplan, Combo is a better home for it, but like I said before I think I may be off base a little on this one. While I assert that Titanshift belongs in combo, I think Amulet Titan could realistically fall in either but should be in Combo. While I see that I am putting us in the difficult spot of classifying decks that are hybrids of different archetypes, I think there are more proper classifications for them, and I also think that the size of each section should not be a concern for us, so Big Mana only having a few decks in it is a nonissue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
Titan Shift, and Amulet, while they have a combo, do not need them. Their mana advantage lets them play any kind of game from slamming a huge threat, pumping it, casting Shift, or (I dont know if I was just lucky or this was a spicy list) boarding into a midrange deck and using a bunch of value creatures to overwhelm answers.
Its still Big Mana to me.
UTron, I can see as Control though.
As to the Aggro/Tempo distinction, if you wanted to split those up, as they are different things, thats fine to me, but its still 'land threats and go to face' or 'land threat(s) and defend it'.
As you may have noticed, the Modern Subforum has been updated with the deck categories. We are going to give this a trial run for ~1 week and if it is not working out then we will cut the number of decks down and move them all into one "Established" section, with the rest going to Deck Creation.
If you have any remarks on the placements of the decks at the moment we are still figuring out an ideal method so just voice your opinion.
I missed that topic hehe. I join the opinions against the categorization of decks. The big reason of decks blending stands, and it's also about the practical navigation on the forums. It adds many more clics to join a topic, move back and join another, etc... For me who likes to check multiple discussions or have a global view of what decks are discussed atm, making a sub-section per deck type is a liability more than a tool. It's fancy at best, but not necessary (that's something I always disliked in the legacy section, less readibility at first glance).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pioneer - A bunch of stuff Modern - Humans Legacy - Grixis Phoenix / Death & Taxes
I missed that topic hehe. I join the opinions against the categorization of decks. The big reason of decks blending stands, and it's also about the practical navigation on the forums. It adds many more clics to join a topic, move back and join another, etc... For me who likes to check multiple discussions or have a global view of what decks are discussed atm, making a sub-section per deck type is a liability more than a tool. It's fancy at best, but not necessary (that's something I always disliked in the legacy section, less readibility at first glance).
This sort of argument never made much sense to me. If your problem is that you have to move through many clicks to joing discussions where you are engaging, there is a much easier way:
Go to the upper right corner of the site, hover the mouse over your picture, wait the drop-down menu to appear, and click on "my threads". BOOM. All the threads where you are participating will be organized there in order of which received the most recent update. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. No need to keep going back with clicks, then entering on another archetype and finding the decklist you want. It is all there in "my threads".
The separation in archetypes is to help people who are searching for particular decks on the forum to more easily find them, and also for the ones that don't know what deck they want to be able to look for it in their archetype of choice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
My only issue with the above is that the two main death's shadow decks should be classified as "midrange" not "aggro/tempo." As a JDS player myself, I think this miss-classification is a big deal because it hampers the understanding of players who don't understand the deck. To elaborate: the original death's shadow deck, before the probe ban and the printing of fatal push - 2015 and before - was an all in tempo/aggro deck. It played cards like savanna lions, mutagenic growth, and become immense, which were designed to increase the threat density and average kill speed of the deck. It did not play grindy midrange cards like K command, or lily planeswalkers. After the git probe ban, the fans of the deck went back to the drawing board and developed 95% of the current JDS shell, which broke out with aplomb after fatal push was printed. This deck was not an all in kill you deck, almost entirely dropped the pump spells (barring a few TBR), and brought in grindier cards like K Command and LotV. Part of the massive initial success of the deck, and still helps me to this day, is that people do not understand the archetype shift from aggro to midrange deck. Lifegain is great against an aggro deck, and terrible against a modern DS deck. You should board against JDS/GDS like you would against Jund or Control, not like you would against burn or affinity. My opponents make this mistake all the time, which is why I believe it's harmful to include them in the aggro category.
So:
1. DS decks play a grindy, long form midrange plan like Jund or Abzan. TBR and larger threats give them the option of adopting a faster, more aggressive plan B, which is a strength of the deck, but doesn't characterize it.
2. The decks cannot be considered tempo decks, IMO, because they run 6+ copies of thoughtseize, which is a known tempo negative play.
3. Here's a link to Reid Duke's most recent article on the JDS deck, in his Bxxx midrange series he did in December. He refers to the JDS and GDS as "black midrange" several times in the article, and I'm willing to take his word on that.
In any case, thanks mods for trying to make the modern forum as user-friendly as it can be given WOTC's recent removal of more data from the sample!
This sort of argument never made much sense to me. If your problem is that you have to move through many clicks to joing discussions where you are engaging, there is a much easier way:
Go to the upper right corner of the site, hover the mouse over your picture, wait the drop-down menu to appear, and click on "my threads". BOOM.
I hear you, but my point still makes some sense though.
First is accessibility, it means that I can't have a clean page with all the most popular/discussed decks on page one at once, instead I have a forum made of drawers in more drawers... It's like having your socks in your bedroom, in a closet, in a drawer, in a pile of other sock pairs. It's more convenient to have all your socks on a drying rack, or if I'm in a clothing shop, on a single wide and clear shelf.
If I follow your guideline, every member has to arrange his/her own personal compartment, which takes much energy while a couple moderators can make those members' life easier.
Second is awareness, I like to know what decks I'm not following are hot at the moment. I can lurk sometimes and check out whether a new deck rises or if a forgotten one actually got revived by new cards. I miss that information if I use my fav list, and I still have to annoyingly clic many times to check out several pages.
I believe deck titles should be marked instead, with a template like [AGGRO], even adding a colour would help on the pale gray background. I prefer to see one single page after I clicked "established", with hot topics on top (pinned if X reason/policy), scroll down and search for the [TYPE] archetypes I want.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pioneer - A bunch of stuff Modern - Humans Legacy - Grixis Phoenix / Death & Taxes
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
@headminerve
The quick accessibility issue seems pretty easily fixed by just having a table of contents page like the Current Deck Classification thread, though as Xour said the links seem to be broken at the moment.
Also, will the Current Deck Classification thread ever be updated to include brief descriptions of the decks? It'd be pretty useful for newer players to be able to get a quick idea of what everything does without having to jump into those threads
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
Just thought I would say I appreciate the new sorting of established decks by archetype. Even if decks blur the lines between archetypes, it's useful for me to visually see the general idea of what each deck is trying to do.
My only issue with the above is that the two main death's shadow decks should be classified as "midrange" not "aggro/tempo." As a JDS player myself, I think this miss-classification is a big deal because it hampers the understanding of players who don't understand the deck. To elaborate: the original death's shadow deck, before the probe ban and the printing of fatal push - 2015 and before - was an all in tempo/aggro deck. It played cards like savanna lions, mutagenic growth, and become immense, which were designed to increase the threat density and average kill speed of the deck. It did not play grindy midrange cards like K command, or lily planeswalkers. After the git probe ban, the fans of the deck went back to the drawing board and developed 95% of the current JDS shell, which broke out with aplomb after fatal push was printed. This deck was not an all in kill you deck, almost entirely dropped the pump spells (barring a few TBR), and brought in grindier cards like K Command and LotV. Part of the massive initial success of the deck, and still helps me to this day, is that people do not understand the archetype shift from aggro to midrange deck. Lifegain is great against an aggro deck, and terrible against a modern DS deck. You should board against JDS/GDS like you would against Jund or Control, not like you would against burn or affinity. My opponents make this mistake all the time, which is why I believe it's harmful to include them in the aggro category.
So:
1. DS decks play a grindy, long form midrange plan like Jund or Abzan. TBR and larger threats give them the option of adopting a faster, more aggressive plan B, which is a strength of the deck, but doesn't characterize it.
2. The decks cannot be considered tempo decks, IMO, because they run 6+ copies of thoughtseize, which is a known tempo negative play.
3. Here's a link to Reid Duke's most recent article on the JDS deck, in his Bxxx midrange series he did in December. He refers to the JDS and GDS as "black midrange" several times in the article, and I'm willing to take his word on that.
In any case, thanks mods for trying to make the modern forum as user-friendly as it can be given WOTC's recent removal of more data from the sample!
Fair points about the DS threads. I will move them to Midrange.
The first reasonable starting point to classify decks will be with a 5 class system of Aggro & Tempo, Midrange, Control, Combo, Big Mana
So you are forgoing performance classification?
For now we are giving this 'archetype system' a week trial run. If it is wildly disliked after a week we can switch to a single 'established' page with a more strict ruled for threads that appear there. Something like a GP/PT top 32 in the last 6 months or a SCG Invitational top 8, to give an idea. For now this is just testing out the forums showing the broader format from a FNM to PT level, ie: the whole competitive format.
I do not oppose the restructuring... just surprised that Ponza is categorized as a midrange deck.
What would you call it? I can see an argument for Tempo, but really it's gameplan is to cast some land destruction and slow the opponent down, then land some bigger threats and smash for the win, is it not? This is in the same philosophy of the other decks in this category of surviving the early game with some form of disruption to stabilize in the midgame before playing larger threats and moving for a win.
Hmmm is every link broken for you? I tried them while not on my account and they all work fine. The only thing I have to fix is any deck that was in "Tier 1" before just redirects to the main Established section now. The links on the site can redirect from any old thread that has been moved. So even using the link https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/developing-competitive-modern/220010-4c-gifts will just redirect it to the new one.
@headminerve
The quick accessibility issue seems pretty easily fixed by just having a table of contents page like the Current Deck Classification thread, though as Xour said the links seem to be broken at the moment.
Also, will the Current Deck Classification thread ever be updated to include brief descriptions of the decks? It'd be pretty useful for newer players to be able to get a quick idea of what everything does without having to jump into those threads
Yep I'm working on that regardless of whatever forum organization system we end up with. I'll probably make another thread about it in a few days.
Hmmm is every link broken for you? I tried them while not on my account and they all work fine. The only thing I have to fix is any deck that was in "Tier 1" before just redirects to the main Established section now. The links on the site can redirect from any old thread that has been moved. So even using the link https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/developing-competitive-modern/220010-4c-gifts will just redirect it to the new one.
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
I do not oppose the restructuring... just surprised that Ponza is categorized as a midrange deck.
What would you call it? I can see an argument for Tempo, but really it's gameplan is to cast some land destruction and slow the opponent down, then land some bigger threats and smash for the win, is it not? This is in the same philosophy of the other decks in this category of surviving the early game with some form of disruption to stabilize in the midgame before playing larger threats and moving for a win.
Might be because when I hear midrange.. the BGx family = Jund, Abzan,.. comes to mind. Well, with Tireless tracker becomeing a staple, then I guess Ponza can grind too. Anyway, I've only recently put together Ponza on paper. No problem if it's in the midrange area.
Ah, and I'm sort of getting used to the new forum structure... so to visit Azorius Titan = control, Stompy = aggro, Ponza = midrange. The place actually feels more organized. Now, I don't have to scroll down through many threads looking for Stompy.. when everything was still jammed together at Developing Competitive had to scroll down a lot.
For now we are giving this 'archetype system' a week trial run. If it is wildly disliked after a week we can switch to a single 'established' page with a more strict ruled for threads that appear there. Something like a GP/PT top 32 in the last 6 months or a SCG Invitational top 8, to give an idea.
For now we are giving this 'archetype system' a week trial run. If it is wildly disliked after a week we can switch to a single 'established' page with a more strict ruled for threads that appear there. Something like a GP/PT top 32 in the last 6 months or a SCG Invitational top 8, to give an idea.
Why not doing both?
Why bother? Top 32, would be a HUGE list of decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
MTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge
I mean look at my current home. Jeskai 'Control' it covers pretty much any strategy from hard control, to tempo/aggro, to kiki/resto and anything in between. Its all over the place and a purge is needed.
Spirits
We are going to try out Option #2 first since that was the popular choice. Proven decks will be broken down as follows:
Burn
Humans
Affinity
Grixis Death's Shadow
Jund Death's Shadow
Elves
Merfolk
Boggles
Infect
RG Eldrazi
Hollow One
Death and Taxes
Bant Eldrazi
UB Mill
Zoo
GW Hatebears
Goblins
Stompy
BW Tokens
Grixis Delver
Faeries
UR Delver
Bant Spirits
Soul Sisters
Eternal Command
RUG
Dredgevine
Jeskai Delver
Midrange
Mardu
Jund
Abzan
Knightfall/Bant Midrange
Ponza
BW Midrange
Jeskai Midrange
Esper Midrange
Abzan Liege
BW Eldrazi Processor
Assault Loam
Control
Jeskai Control
UW Control
Blue Moon/UR Breach
8Rack
Lantern Control
RW Prison
Tezzerator
Esper Control
Sultai Control
Skred Red
Grixis Contorl
BW Smallpox
Emeria Control
MartyrProc
Cruel Control
Combo
UR Storm
Vizier Company
Living End
Dredge
Groshoalbrand
Ad Nauseam
KCI Combo
Restore Balance
U/x Living As Foretold
4C Gifts
Taking Turns
Bubble Hulk
Ascendency Storm
Kiki-Chord
RUG Scapeshift
Cheeri0s
Big Mana
RG Titanshift
Gx Tron
Eldrazi Tron
Amulet Titan
Mono U Tron
G Devotion
UW Tron
Decks that are definitely getting removed are:
Loam Pox should be merged with the Assault Loam thread. Since it can't it will probably be archived and talk redirected to the other thread.
UR Ascension Storm never recovered from the bans.
Sultai Delirium Was this ever a deck anyway?
If you have a glaring problem with the current classification of a deck, please comment below with an in-depth description of why it should be somewhere else and shouldn't be in its current spot, accounting for the main gameplan of the deck and the most standardized meaning of Aggro/Tempo/Midrange/Control/Combo/Big Mana that you can think of. Likewise, if you think a deck should or shouldn't be in the proven section then please also speak for/against it backed up by results and facts.
Again, because this method of organizing the forums was the most sought after we will be starting with it first. We can try with catagories first, then drop to none if needed. If it goes extremely well then we will stick with it. If it doesn't then we will look at Option #1 as stated in the OP. The current look for that method is a Proven section with all GP/PT top 32 decks in the last six months. An Established section with all other decks with a global presence in the format at least at the PTQ/FNM level, and Developing will stay as is (currently Deck Creation).
MTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
MTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge
Spirits
First, Aggro and Tempo should not be grouped together. While I agree that Tempo and Aggro do share similarities, and that Tempo should be grouped with another archetype, I think Midrange and Tempo is the more appropriate grouping. Aggro decks want to dump all of their resources into the ending the game as fast as possible. This is why we typically think of Aggro decks as playing many cards that all share some quality, such as Burn playing as much direct damage as possible, Merfolk playing multiple lords, or Affinity looking to abuse artifact interactions. This isn't always synergy, such as in Merfolk or Affinity's case: it is all of the cards coming together for a cohesive gameplan. Burn and Zoo have little to no synergy in their deck at all, but every card in the deck is looking to drop the opponent's life total as fast as possible. Compare this to Midrange. Midrange decks are looking to disrupt the opponent, either with hand attack, removal, or sometimes even counterspells, and then start playing the best threats possible and grind card advantage. This is why we generally refer to Midrange decks to want to two-for-one the opponent, or at the very least one-for-one with the caveat of winning with a single threat or two because they are of the highest quality. Now let's breakdown Tempo. Tempo decks want to stick a threat on the board and then disrupt their opponent so they cannot remove it. This is why Tempo plays cheap threats and cheap removal/counters. Isn't that just the reverse of Midrange? Putting it simply, Midrange plays disruption and then threats to keep their opponent on the backfoot. Tempo plays their threat first and then disruption to force their opponent on to the backfoot. The two archetypes are very similar when you sit down and analyze them critically. While they are not the same archetype, they are two archetypes built upon being in the middle ground between Aggro and Control. True, they have many differences as well. Midrange typically plays the best cards on each part of the curve, whereas Tempo is typically using precision timing to get the most advantage out of their cards. Tempo also tends to be more aggressive than Midrange. Despite these differences, however, I believe Midrange to be more similar to Tempo than Aggro. Both are generally looking to be disruptive (more on that later), and while Aggro can and sometimes will play disruption, it isn't a core element of the strategy like it is with Tempo and the stereotypical Modern Midrange deck. While the two are certainly different, their gameplans align more closely together than Aggro and Tempo. As such, I believe Death's Shadow, Infect, Delver variants, Faeries, Bant Spirits, and Eternal Command should be ported over with Midrange to make the sections Aggro and Midrange&Tempo. Furthermore, I also believe BW Tokens, Bant Eldrazi, and RUG should also move over with the Tempo decks. Looking at their decklists, it becomes apparent that they do not share the same qualities that most Aggro decks have. They are not trying to end the game as quickly as possible, and they are not dedicating every card in the deck to doing so. When you look at an Aggro decklist, you see that they are built for speed. These three decks are not doing that. While the RUG link here links to Monkey Grow, or Temur Delver, this logic should apply to whatever RUG Midrange deck arises with the BBE and JTMS unbans as well. Bant Eldrazi is certainly not as disruptive as, say, Jund and Abzan. However, it is built to jam threats that are superior to everything else that would be cast at that point in the game. Similarly, Midrange decks want to play the best cards at every spot on the curve. Thus, despite it not following the stereotypical model of hand attack and Dark Confidant, it is trying to win through superior card quality: the defining factor of a Midrange deck. There's a reason people like Todd Stevens and Ben Friedman talk about it being a midrange/ramp deck, not an aggro deck. While these are dated, even modern-day decklists bear little resemblance to an aggro deck, if any at all. As for BW Tokens, this is coming from the personal experience of someone who played it for roughly a year: the deck is wholeheartedly a Midrange deck. No Aggro deck is looking to start playing its creatures on turn three and four and grind card advantage with Lingering Souls and Bitterblossom. We even had discussion in the thread about how it isn't an Aggro deck. In fact, I remember when the current primer went up and me, along with other posters, heavily contested how the primer defined it as an "aggro-swarm deck." It's literally my first post on the primer thread.
Second, "Big Mana" is mostly comprised of decks that tangentially make large amounts of mana, but ultimately fall into other categories. While making large amounts of mana with ramp is a defining factor of these decks, I do not believe it should be the defining factor for all of them. For example, Mono-Blue Tron is a Tron deck. However, unlike other Tron decks, it wants to play a more traditional Control game. It isn't looking to turbo out Karns. It isn't even seeking to assemble Tron on turn three. It wants to use it's large swaths of mana to cast large artifact creatures and abuse things like Spell Burts or the Mindslaver + Academy Ruins lock. If anything, I believe this deck is far more of a Control deck than a Big Mana deck. If I was a new Modern player looking to read up on Blue Tron, I know I would look under the Control heading. The deck is referred to as a Control deck for a reason, and while it is abusing mana advantage, I don't believe that defines it in the same way that it does for Gx Tron. As such, I believe that Mono-U Tron, along with the similar UW Tron (another deck I have experience with personally and can attest to being a Control deck) should be moved with Control because that is the go-to classification when many people think of them. In a similar vein, I do not believe Titanshift and Amulet Titan belong with Big Mana. Both of these decks are combo decks, and while they also can generate a lot of mana, it isn't necessarily because they need it to cast all of their spells. In Titanshift's case, the only high-CMC card in the deck is Primeval Titan, and while that is a choice ramp target, it isn't looking to abuse all of the mana it has. In reality, the deck wants to abuse having many lands, not having a lot of mana. True, it can use all of its mana with Kessig Wolf Run. But it isn't a deck that primarily wants to cast large threats ahead of the curve. It just wants more lands in play than it should so it can kill with a turn four Scapeshift. It doesn't care about the insane mana ramp it generates so much as that it just has lands in play. Amulet Titan is a deck that realistically could fit into Big Mana, so perhaps I'm just being pedantic with this one. I think that the core aspect of Big Mana is that it wants to always be doing something with the mana advantage that it gets, and is dedicated to utilizing that mana advantage. Unlike Titanshift, Amulet Titan actually does do this a lot of the time. It's constantly digging for lands and playing multiple lands in a single turn. However, I think that the given gameplan of the deck is to assemble a critical mass of lands, Primetime, and Slayer's Stronghold and/or Sunhome, Fortress of the Legion: In other words, a combo that typically ends the game. I think that, given this gameplan, Combo is a better home for it, but like I said before I think I may be off base a little on this one. While I assert that Titanshift belongs in combo, I think Amulet Titan could realistically fall in either but should be in Combo. While I see that I am putting us in the difficult spot of classifying decks that are hybrids of different archetypes, I think there are more proper classifications for them, and I also think that the size of each section should not be a concern for us, so Big Mana only having a few decks in it is a nonissue.
Its still Big Mana to me.
UTron, I can see as Control though.
As to the Aggro/Tempo distinction, if you wanted to split those up, as they are different things, thats fine to me, but its still 'land threats and go to face' or 'land threat(s) and defend it'.
Spirits
If you have any remarks on the placements of the decks at the moment we are still figuring out an ideal method so just voice your opinion.
MTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge
Go to the upper right corner of the site, hover the mouse over your picture, wait the drop-down menu to appear, and click on "my threads". BOOM. All the threads where you are participating will be organized there in order of which received the most recent update. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. No need to keep going back with clicks, then entering on another archetype and finding the decklist you want. It is all there in "my threads".
The separation in archetypes is to help people who are searching for particular decks on the forum to more easily find them, and also for the ones that don't know what deck they want to be able to look for it in their archetype of choice.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
So:
1. DS decks play a grindy, long form midrange plan like Jund or Abzan. TBR and larger threats give them the option of adopting a faster, more aggressive plan B, which is a strength of the deck, but doesn't characterize it.
2. The decks cannot be considered tempo decks, IMO, because they run 6+ copies of thoughtseize, which is a known tempo negative play.
3. Here's a link to Reid Duke's most recent article on the JDS deck, in his Bxxx midrange series he did in December. He refers to the JDS and GDS as "black midrange" several times in the article, and I'm willing to take his word on that.
In any case, thanks mods for trying to make the modern forum as user-friendly as it can be given WOTC's recent removal of more data from the sample!
I do not oppose the restructuring... just surprised that Ponza is categorized as a midrange deck.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
I hear you, but my point still makes some sense though.
First is accessibility, it means that I can't have a clean page with all the most popular/discussed decks on page one at once, instead I have a forum made of drawers in more drawers... It's like having your socks in your bedroom, in a closet, in a drawer, in a pile of other sock pairs. It's more convenient to have all your socks on a drying rack, or if I'm in a clothing shop, on a single wide and clear shelf.
If I follow your guideline, every member has to arrange his/her own personal compartment, which takes much energy while a couple moderators can make those members' life easier.
Second is awareness, I like to know what decks I'm not following are hot at the moment. I can lurk sometimes and check out whether a new deck rises or if a forgotten one actually got revived by new cards. I miss that information if I use my fav list, and I still have to annoyingly clic many times to check out several pages.
I believe deck titles should be marked instead, with a template like [AGGRO], even adding a colour would help on the pale gray background. I prefer to see one single page after I clicked "established", with hot topics on top (pinned if X reason/policy), scroll down and search for the [TYPE] archetypes I want.
There is a difference between the links in the thread and the actual link:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/developing-competitive-modern/220010-4c-gifts
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/combo/220010-4c-gifts
The quick accessibility issue seems pretty easily fixed by just having a table of contents page like the Current Deck Classification thread, though as Xour said the links seem to be broken at the moment.
Also, will the Current Deck Classification thread ever be updated to include brief descriptions of the decks? It'd be pretty useful for newer players to be able to get a quick idea of what everything does without having to jump into those threads
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
For now we are giving this 'archetype system' a week trial run. If it is wildly disliked after a week we can switch to a single 'established' page with a more strict ruled for threads that appear there. Something like a GP/PT top 32 in the last 6 months or a SCG Invitational top 8, to give an idea. For now this is just testing out the forums showing the broader format from a FNM to PT level, ie: the whole competitive format.
What would you call it? I can see an argument for Tempo, but really it's gameplan is to cast some land destruction and slow the opponent down, then land some bigger threats and smash for the win, is it not? This is in the same philosophy of the other decks in this category of surviving the early game with some form of disruption to stabilize in the midgame before playing larger threats and moving for a win.
Hmmm is every link broken for you? I tried them while not on my account and they all work fine. The only thing I have to fix is any deck that was in "Tier 1" before just redirects to the main Established section now. The links on the site can redirect from any old thread that has been moved. So even using the link https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/developing-competitive-modern/220010-4c-gifts will just redirect it to the new one.
Yep I'm working on that regardless of whatever forum organization system we end up with. I'll probably make another thread about it in a few days.
MTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge
None is working for me but these:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/big-mana/220174-gx-tron
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/big-mana/769015-colorless-eldrazi-tron
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/developing-competitive-modern/565457-green-nykthos-devotion-includes-tooth-nail
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/combo/564710-ur-storm
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/combo/605889-gwx-vizier-company
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/deck-creation-modern/786846-u-x-living-as-foretold
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/control/728834-jeskai-control
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/midrange/774240-grixis-deaths-shadow
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/aggro-tempo/782962-burn
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/aggro-tempo/769652-modern-humans
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/aggro-tempo/219590-affinity
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/aggro-tempo/688629-rg-eldrazi
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/aggro-tempo/788208-modern-hollow-one-discussion
Might be because when I hear midrange.. the BGx family = Jund, Abzan,.. comes to mind. Well, with Tireless tracker becomeing a staple, then I guess Ponza can grind too. Anyway, I've only recently put together Ponza on paper. No problem if it's in the midrange area.
Ah, and I'm sort of getting used to the new forum structure... so to visit Azorius Titan = control, Stompy = aggro, Ponza = midrange. The place actually feels more organized. Now, I don't have to scroll down through many threads looking for Stompy.. when everything was still jammed together at Developing Competitive had to scroll down a lot.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Why bother? Top 32, would be a HUGE list of decks.
Spirits