For example had I not heard about it in threads about stupidly named decks i would have no idea what Team America is however, i know what BUG is and i know what the base of a delver deck looks like. If two people were having a conversation about a bug delver deck i could at least understand what they were saying without having to google the deck name.
There's no reason you can't spend a moment to learn what the decks in a format are, especially if you're interested in having discussion about competitive decks. After all, you have to learn what the basis of a Delver deck looks like before you could even get to your hypothetical point, and compared to that, learning a small handful of names is trivial. Again, if everything you know about a deck is that its name is "BUG Delver," then your contributions to the discussion would be so uninformed that they wouldn't actually contribute anything to competitive-minded discourse. It doesn't discourage new players at all. It simply encourages them to learn a little before jumping right in, and they'll be more informed and better off for it.
It's completely unrealistic to expect new players to know all the decks in legacy, especially if they have stupid names that don't help you.
You are joking right? Most legacy deck names are so simplistic that it does what it says on the tin. Burn, Goblins, Merfolk to name a few. Also YES it is realisitc to expect a new player to familiarize themselves with the competitive environment, otherwise that player would get stomped for not even understanding simple basics about what a deck might do for its standard strategy.
If i knew a deck was BUG delver, from that alone I could at least make some decent assumptions on how its built by just thinking about Delver.
If I were a new player and I were to look at deck title like Bug Delver, it makes no sense to me sense I need to familiarize myself with why its got that name. Does it involves bugs? What is being delved? Is there a card that delves into bugs?
Not everyone wants to do tons of research before attending an event. Some people want to just take their pet deck to the event having only played with friends with their pet decks.
Sounds like a fine excuse if a competitive scene from a tournament shouldn't be different from kitchen table games.
Pro Tip: It is different. As it will always be cutthroat then what people see at the kitchen table.
Excluding these people from discussion (Which is PRECISELY what you are doing by giving them these stupid names) subtracts from their enjoyment for no benefit other than elitism.
But aren't names for decks created as "pet names" for a "pet deck" that was played with amongst their friends? As it wouldn't be elitism, its a simple "pet name" becoming an archetype in a format.
I've made my points earlier about why it benefits new players discussion wise so I'm not going to bother retyping all of that.
And I made my point. If I were a new player names like "Boros", "Jund" "Delver" "Rock" "Bug" are pointless to me if I don't research it.
Honestly what you're not doing is showing any of us why unique names are in any way better.
Neither are you. My points still stand.
We've shown examples of where marginal benefits are gained from standardized naming.
Marginal
1) Not very important
2) Very slight or small
3) Not included in the main part of society or of a group
Sounds like it isn't helping if you put it that way in terms of using various "buzz words" like Boros, Bug, Rock, Delver, etc.
To me it sounds like you want new players to do the research for no other reason than you happen to like naming your decks after food rather than function.
So you don't want players to go research a deck because its got a pet name that is now popular?
Give me some examples of how naming your decks like this benefits the community more than the reasons we've already stated.
Honestly screw the community and various individuals for having this weird preconception that naming a deck should be on a silver platter for lazy people who refuse to do research on any deck. That it would be "ridiculous" to have them do such a thing. I don't mind if a deck is called Boros, Bug, Delver, or whatever but don't you start being the whole voice for the community and try to speak for many. If any player should give their deck a pet name it should not be looked down upon because it doesn't use "buzz words" and your opponent doesn't immediately understand what they are playing against. Since it doesn't use popular "buzz words" as part of its deck title seeing as how Magic: The Gathering is a game based on strategy and a misleading Deck Title can catch people unaware for not being "cookie cutter".
#1: Temur Frontier (What I like the most)
#2: Mardu Horde (A very close runner up)
#3: Jeskai Way (Interesting concept)
#4: Abzan Houses (Seems kinda cool but it doesn't jell well with me)
#5: Sultai Brood (My least favorite)
I missed the Maul. Thanks! And I'm looking for a slot to replace for Gratuitous. However, I don't like Dictate because it's a double-edged sword.
Dictate is a combat trick since it has flash. You are not required to have it on the battlefield before you start swinging with Zurgo, yet flashing it in before combat damage is dealt to create lethal when it wasn't lethal before is something that will make heads roll.
You seem to be missing out on some good damage doublers. I suggest you give Gratuitous Violence and Dictate of the Twin Gods a whirl.
Something else to consider is Tenza, Godo's Maul. For 4 mana total, you equip it to Zurgo to make him a 10/5 with haste, indestructible on your turn, trample, and if a creature he damaged should die he gets a +1/+1 counter. If Zurgo has killed even one creature and then gets equipped with Tenza, Godo's Maul, and you just so happen to have a damage doubler as well... that is game as 22 points of general damage come trucking into someone's face.
Tried it two days ago and completed its campaign mode. I was so infuriated with the AI, feeling like this was being unusually difficult. Though that was just idiocy on my part. As when the game asked me how magic I have played, I answered truthfully, I have played a lot of mtg. I did complete the game on planeswalker difficulty so it did feel that much more rewarding.
I think it went fairly alright considering I got 2nd place at the prerelease. I picked red, and had some actually very bad cards outside of red in my packs.
Got two Goblin Kaboomist (one was from the seeded pack, the other was a foil from another pack), a pretty good amount burn spells, and a bunch of cheap red critters.
I´m sorry but this whole "Build an army" thing isn´t that so dull and non-creative? I mean it´s like all Magic is about is creatures, creatures and more creatures. I miss mechanics like Extort, Cipher, Miracle and so on that requires a bit of thinking instead of "Herp derp im gonna put a lot of tokens / big creatures out and attack you"
Sure you have to win which is mostly done by having creatures but it would just be nice if mechanics wasn´t tied so much to creatures all the time
Every block can be boiled down to "build an army". As that is how it always just been about and how it is done. It is also something we know none of the mechanics for. You maybe pleasantly surprised.
I must be the only one that actually thought of the Spike tribe when I saw the name. Player archetypes totally slipped my mind. That said, I was going to build a Vorel of the Hull Clade and am definitely considering playing a couple of these guys.
I felt kind of bad. Never heard of any barring the term Timmy (Which i believe are player who enjoying using fatties.)
Though it is understandable, as even I was wondering if this at first was a thread about Spikes, the player profile variety. Not the creature type variety.
Crazy idea that probably won't happen. At least not now, but could it ever?
There has been some speculation both regarding dwarves and fortifications. Both are fairly baseless, although signals from Blogatog are that they will both return some day.
Dwarves have been tied to land-destruction. Good fortifications could need some decent land-destruction to keep them in check. Good fortifications could also be used to keep land-destruction in check, so that while in standard, land-destruction are perhaps important sideboard cards but not able to be a real deck due to all the fortifications.
However, this would introduce more land-destruction to modern, and perhaps make it a slightly more viable deck there. It is something that a significant subset would want, but with the power of the Modern format it would probably not be a problem-deck. Also, there are few new players in modern, which I assume is one of the reasons why Wizards want to keep LD out of Standard.
Knowing Wizards, I can see it being a more narrow land destruction. A stone rain that could only hit fortified lands.
I haven't tried it out yet but I feel comfortable with my purchase on steam for 10$. The only offers they had was unlocking all the cards of specific planes. Plus being a preorderer got me a free premium booster.
My favorites would be Feeder, Tiller, Weaver. Tiller has some hilarious tricks against decks that rely on key lands to save them like Maze of Ith or Homeward Path or Cavern of Souls. "Yes, yes. Tell me again about how you were just about to wrath the board. What? Wrathing the board isn't fair for you anymore?"
I wonder if it would be considered silly if I used the nerf axe in a motion like I am going to slam it down on an enemy walker but instead lightly tap it while I control a Garruk, Apex Predator.
You are joking right? Most legacy deck names are so simplistic that it does what it says on the tin. Burn, Goblins, Merfolk to name a few. Also YES it is realisitc to expect a new player to familiarize themselves with the competitive environment, otherwise that player would get stomped for not even understanding simple basics about what a deck might do for its standard strategy.
If I were a new player and I were to look at deck title like Bug Delver, it makes no sense to me sense I need to familiarize myself with why its got that name. Does it involves bugs? What is being delved? Is there a card that delves into bugs?
Sounds like a fine excuse if a competitive scene from a tournament shouldn't be different from kitchen table games.
Pro Tip: It is different. As it will always be cutthroat then what people see at the kitchen table.
But aren't names for decks created as "pet names" for a "pet deck" that was played with amongst their friends? As it wouldn't be elitism, its a simple "pet name" becoming an archetype in a format.
And I made my point. If I were a new player names like "Boros", "Jund" "Delver" "Rock" "Bug" are pointless to me if I don't research it.
Neither are you. My points still stand.
Marginal
1) Not very important
2) Very slight or small
3) Not included in the main part of society or of a group
Sounds like it isn't helping if you put it that way in terms of using various "buzz words" like Boros, Bug, Rock, Delver, etc.
So you don't want players to go research a deck because its got a pet name that is now popular?
Honestly screw the community and various individuals for having this weird preconception that naming a deck should be on a silver platter for lazy people who refuse to do research on any deck. That it would be "ridiculous" to have them do such a thing. I don't mind if a deck is called Boros, Bug, Delver, or whatever but don't you start being the whole voice for the community and try to speak for many. If any player should give their deck a pet name it should not be looked down upon because it doesn't use "buzz words" and your opponent doesn't immediately understand what they are playing against. Since it doesn't use popular "buzz words" as part of its deck title seeing as how Magic: The Gathering is a game based on strategy and a misleading Deck Title can catch people unaware for not being "cookie cutter".
#2: Mardu Horde (A very close runner up)
#3: Jeskai Way (Interesting concept)
#4: Abzan Houses (Seems kinda cool but it doesn't jell well with me)
#5: Sultai Brood (My least favorite)
Dictate is a combat trick since it has flash. You are not required to have it on the battlefield before you start swinging with Zurgo, yet flashing it in before combat damage is dealt to create lethal when it wasn't lethal before is something that will make heads roll.
Something else to consider is Tenza, Godo's Maul. For 4 mana total, you equip it to Zurgo to make him a 10/5 with haste, indestructible on your turn, trample, and if a creature he damaged should die he gets a +1/+1 counter. If Zurgo has killed even one creature and then gets equipped with Tenza, Godo's Maul, and you just so happen to have a damage doubler as well... that is game as 22 points of general damage come trucking into someone's face.
Got two Goblin Kaboomist (one was from the seeded pack, the other was a foil from another pack), a pretty good amount burn spells, and a bunch of cheap red critters.
Every block can be boiled down to "build an army". As that is how it always just been about and how it is done. It is also something we know none of the mechanics for. You maybe pleasantly surprised.
Give this a read sometime: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr280
It tells you all about such profiling. Like for instance I am a Melvin-Spike type, basically a very ruthless player.
Though it is understandable, as even I was wondering if this at first was a thread about Spikes, the player profile variety. Not the creature type variety.
That would be Spike Weaver.
Knowing Wizards, I can see it being a more narrow land destruction. A stone rain that could only hit fortified lands.