MTG Salvation

We've just implemented the new [Arch] tag, in addition to [SCD] and [MCD], for Archetype discussion threads. This should help make the distinction between threads for discussing archetypes and true MCD threads, such as [Arch] Ramp vs. [MCD] Wildfire-esque cards.

The moderators will go over and retroactively apply these tags to all Archetype threads currently under the MCD tag.

Is there an alternative abbreviation that you might recommend?

Quote from Toad

That's exactly to what I first thought when I read the [Arch] tag.

I don't really see the need for an extra tag, an archetype discussion is nothing more than a specific MCD where all cards are geared towards the same strategy rather than the same concept.

I second this. I applaud the move to more organization, but this may not be necessary.

I like it. I don't think Arch tag is confusing at all. Archive has its own separate subforum and archenemy is not something you expect in a subforum about SCD and archetype discussions. Especially ones people get used to it.

AT or ATD feels unintuitive to me. It is not clear what the 'T' stands for.

... but now I want to see "[Arch] Arches", featuring Dragon Arch, Runed Arch...

Maybe "[Archetype]", just to be clear?

Voicing the same concern as everyone else - I like AD (archetype discussion) or something similar to avoid confusion with Archenemy + other issues.

I like the move to switch it up to archetype discussion vs. mcd discussion. It's not really splitting hairs, because we can have threads about red control, green aggro, g/w tokens, etc where we couldn't before with a mcd thread.

AD seems appropriate for the tag.

After some discussion, we've decided to change the [Arch] tag to [Archetype] for more clarity.

[MCD] works just fine, IMO. It's a discussion about multiple cards, after all.

[Arch] made me think about Archenemy, and [Archetype] seems unnecessary, considering we already have a [MCD] tag for threads that are discussing ...multiple cards.

Quote from wtwlf123

[MCD] works just fine, IMO. It's a discussion about multiple cards, after all.

[Arch] made me think about Archenemy, and [Archetype] seems unnecessary, considering we already have a [MCD] tag for threads that are discussing ...multiple cards.

I disagree, I feel like MCD is about a discussion of various cards that don't necessarily require and archetype, while and archetype discussion often involves multiple cards but isn't so much about the cards as the ideology.

In short, and for example:

MCD -> Creatures that can double as burn: Ghitu Slinger, Fire Imp, Ember Hauler. Sure this can be about a burn archetype, but it can just as easily be a sort of "this or that" discussion.

Archetype -> Reanimator... You can discuss various fatties, discard outlets, reanimator spells, or even alternate ways to cheat things into play if you can't reanimate them, but you can also take about numbers and statistics that pertain to that archetype, including but not limited to how many discard outlets you want at various cube sizes. Sure it seems like a discussion about cards, but you don't actually have to discuss actual cards as you can have a discussion strictly about numbers.

More so, it's easier to have an archetype discussion with that myriad of cards than an awkward MCD where discard outlets are compared to reanimation spells for some odd reason.

Or, you could just say [MCD] Reanimator ...which would mean the exact same thing as [Arch] Reanimator.

Quote from wtwlf123

Or, you could just say [MCD] Reanimator ...which would mean the exact same thing as [Arch] Reanimator.

So we're talking about reanimator spells right? Like it's a discussion about things like Reanimate, Animate Dead, and Recurring Nightmares?

[MCD] Reanimator makes it sound like a discussion about reanimation spells, not about cards related to the archetype, or the archetype itself.

Worse is when we end up with two threads next to one another:

[MCD] Reanimator
[MCD] Reanimation

Quote from Demogogue »

Worse is when we end up with two threads next to one another:

[MCD] Reanimator
[MCD] Reanimation

This shouldn't happen, because the compilation sticky should link everyone to [MCD] Reanimator which is the thread that discusses the reanimation related cards.

It just creates yet more tags, and it's not even needed.

Quote from wtwlf123

This shouldn't happen, because the compilation sticky should link everyone to [MCD] Reanimator which is the thread that discusses the reanimation related cards.

It just creates yet more tags, and it's not even needed.

But reanimator =! reanimation cards.

But a [MCD] about reanimator is more than just reanimation spells. It talks about ...multiple cards... that go in ...reanimator. Otherwise, it would be called something different.

Quote from wtwlf123

But a [MCD] about reanimator is more than just reanimation spells. It talks about ...multiple cards... that go in ...reanimator. Otherwise, it would be called something different.

That's exactly what I'm saying... See the confusion that happened just now?

I'm saying I want to only talk about reanimation, not in a reanimator sense though. However, there is also the need to talk about reanimator, but in a different sense.

We feel that there are enough advantages to the [Archetype] tag to justify its implementation. There's enough of a distinction between Archetype threads and MCDs such as "Eldrazi" or "Masticores" that separating them makes sense, and makes it easier to find archetype threads when they are distinct from MCD threads.

I like the archetype tag. It is very clear and it looks nice, too!