[Article] A Rose by Any Other Name - by Nightmare

[Koby]

Article by Adam Barnello aka Nightmare (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/recurring-nightmares-a-rose-by-any-other-name/)

Apparently Pros hate this forum's deck names. Some of them suck. So does Quick'n'Toast, Boat Brew, Caw Go, and "The Sunny Delight: Black Cherry" (http://www.starcitygames.com/article/27425_Black-Suns-Zenith.html).

So why are Pros (or maybe even just Stone Blade Entertainment designers) hating on gimmicky deck names? Read more and discuss.

[Julian23]

"Any press is good press."

That's how I see it with regards to the Legacy format itself. There's a reason nobody cared about that stuff only some years ago.

[UnderwaterGuy]

I'm surprised that anyone could care that strongly about deck names.

[Aggro_zombies]

I'm surprised that anyone could care that strongly about deck names.
For the same reason people nerd out about anything else, really.

If you're managing or watching coverage, the ideal deck name gives you the following information:

1) What color or colors the deck is;

2) Something about the archetype (control, midrange, combo, etc.);

3) Any other relevant defining feature of the deck

A name like "Death and Taxes" tells you absolutely nothing about what the deck is - it's just one of those names you have to memorize. Unfortunately, for people just casually watching coverage, or for people trying to do coverage with minimal Legacy background, some of these names are completely impenetrable. RUG Delver? Okay, easy. TES? A little harder, but probably something that's killing people with Tendrils. Four Horsemen, Nic Fit, or Solidarity? What the everloving fuck?

Of course, deck designers want to give decks unique or interesting names to add flair, but it really doesn't add anything.

[HammafistRoob]

People who get no booty tend to reach for things to gripe about. It's a fact.

[(nameless one)]

In pretty sure Death and Taxes was the name of the deck given by its creator when it was the laughing stock of MTG Salvation back in 2005 or something. I remember the argument on why waste $2 on a Plains that can be Wastelanded. Go ahead, ask Finn.

And no matter what year it is or what cards got added to it, it's still Canadian Thresh. Goobafish named it that and it stays like that.

[bjholmes3]

This reminds me when there was an uprising on Shoryuken.com forums about the ridiculous tradition of naming every single thread something absurd. Some people just hate cute little nicknames, I suppose.

[Greenpoe]

He doesn't even mention how ridiculous the "Stompy" archetypes sound.

[(nameless one)]

He doesn't even mention how ridiculous the "Stompy" archetypes sound.

This. Berserk/Infect Stompy = beatdown with minimal lands.

Dragonstompy = Blood Moon + Sol Lands.dec

Faerie Stompy = where's the faerie?

I seriously still don't get what makes Stompy a Stompy.

Also from what I remember from my Magic history, UWR tempo was SSS (Star Spangled Slaughter (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Standard_RWU_Star-Spangled_Slaughter))

[from Cairo]

Nic Fit – From Tao, on mtgTheSource.com, on 5-27-11:

“Because many people asked and speculated: Its name comes from a Sonic Youth song that I was listening to when I named the deck. If you were a smoker you also might get the desire to smoke while playing a tournament because you will often play long rounds but mostly I just found "Nic Fit" to be a good name for this deck.”

The song is by The Untouchables, but who's counting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCOZ13g0o6Y

[davelin]

I think the diverse names is one of the reasons that makes Legacy such a unique and fun format. The top standard decks are known by their color wheel designations and tactics i.e. mono blue devotion or Boros mid-range, who gives a crap about those names?

[TheMightyQuinn]

You rang?

I registered on this site, contributed nothing to the community, and a deck was named after me. Boom.

[(nameless one)]

You rang?

I registered on this site, contributed nothing to the community, and a deck was named after me. Boom.

Actually the deck was named after this song (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_the_Eskimo_(Mighty_Quinn)).

[TheMightyQuinn]

Which my name is a reference to.



I actually build a metric fuckton of decks that never see the light of day. I'll proxy them up on MWS, maybe play a few games on MWS, then get bored and scrap them. Any number of things can inspire a deck. Sometimes it's actually cards, or any given one card I feel like playing at the moment. Sometimes the deck is actually top-down; say, for instance, that someone makes an account on the Source with a handle referencing a damnably catchy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPcfQfG5uMM) Bob Dylan song I hadn't even thought about in years. I might get said tune stuck in my head for a week, and decide that I'd like to build a deck with that name. Quinn's an eskimo, so obviously it needs to be a Snow deck.

Usually these decks get scrapped, but every one in a hundred actually turns out to actually be really fucking impressive. This is one of those.

[Finn]

In pretty sure Death and Taxes was the name of the deck given by its creator when it was the laughing stock of MTG Salvation back in 2005 or something. I remember the argument on why waste $2 on a Plains that can be Wastelanded. Go ahead, ask Finn.

And no matter what year it is or what cards got added to it, it's still Canadian Thresh. Goobafish named it that and it stays like that.This whole topic is kinda funny to me. I distinctly recall feeling the opposite of Kibler. I see value in seeing pop culture reflected in the deck names of the day. "Ghost Dad", "Teen Titans", "The Rock and his...", "Soul Sisters", etc. If there was ever a compendium of deck names, it could double as an almanac of some sort. Magic has history and history has value. I spent a couple days thinking up an appropriate name for what I wanted D+T to do, but I was not sure what color(s) it would end up being. I tried Tangle Wire, Glowrider, pirates, Windborn Muse, Meddling Mage, Hokori, etc. Nobody really knew what worked best back then, so I tried lots and lots of angles, but yeah...always taxes. I felt happy to be contributing to the rich legacy of names this game has. Unlike these other guys there was no inside joke. It was conscious.

Tin Fins is a much funnier name when you include the "...Return of the Onion Burst" part. But then you can stop speculating on whether or not it is silly on purpose.

I don't recall D+T ever catching ridicule though. I mean, I guess it did in the very beginning when I was trying to figure out how to balance the taxing with board positioning and speed. But I don't think Adam has ever had any respect for my contributions to this game. So through his prism, I am sure the deck seemed bad just minutes before the Danish invented it this spring. Of course, Thomas Enevoldsen was actually piloting a deck that had been imagined and improved gradually for years before he and his buddies had ever heard of it. Thomas knows that, and it is a non-issue. He is just the first talented tournament grinder who "got it". He got it so well that he kept winning until everyone else did.

Lemme just set this straight for a moment. For a long time, guys like Ben Nash, Jeff "Amoebasinger", David Winsauer, and a few others knew that capable pilots with D+T won over and over against decks nobody else believed. What, you never heard of these guys? Right! We don't frequent tournaments. This is not to mention the guys like Barbed Blightning, Swords to Timeshares, and Monovfox who have championed it recently. Then you get stuff like this:

You had situations like Death and Taxes - a deck that was garbage from day one (so no one cared what the creator - also the inventor of a deck named "Dirt" - called it). Years later, Wizards has printed a slew of new cards that make the deck good, and the only parts that look the same are the Mother of Runes, Karakas, and Aether Vials - and yet someone said "This is just D&T with better cards," and so it goes....which is simply false. Adam is just being a dick to me here. And I don't know that it changes his point or not, but he either knows or should know if he is going to state it as a correction, that this is not at all accurate.

It's true about the $2 Plains though. When Karakas was $20, Bardo said to snap them up. He was right.

[GoblinSettler]

If decks went by bland color+strategy names it would be easier for folks with higher profiles to coin cleverer options that catch on after the fact.

If it weren't for those meddling kids Maverick could be called BK Knights.

[HammafistRoob]

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck_search_result.asp?Creator=Brian+Kibler

Some of these deck names are quite hypocritical. But to be fair, I'm not sure if he even named these, just sayin'.

[Barook]

A name like "Death and Taxes" tells you absolutely nothing about what the deck is - it's just one of those names you have to memorize. Unfortunately, for people just casually watching coverage, or for people trying to do coverage with minimal Legacy background, some of these names are completely impenetrable. RUG Delver? Okay, easy. TES? A little harder, but probably something that's killing people with Tendrils. Four Horsemen, Nic Fit, or Solidarity? What the everloving fuck?

I'm eagerly waiting for the day of a playable RUG deck with Devour, so people can call it "RUG Muncher" in the coverage.

[[SLAYER]chaos]

I love funny/interesting names to decks. It's part of what makes them unique.

[damionblackgear]

Why are the old names a problem?

It's the same in sports. We don't call local teams by where they're from. We gave them nicknames to be remembered by. If we didn't, we'd end up with X number of teams called The *Your Location Here*s.

The names weren't hard. Yes, you had to learn them but you'd have to do that with any competitive event (team names, important players, positions, piece names, etc). Using Football (American) as an example, you have to understand what a nickle defense package is and the difference to a prevent defense. What it means to have a run up the 2 opposed to the 9. Wishbone opposed to a I formation. a Slant instead of a Post.

The names give a way to separate decks that were similar (ex: AnT and TES). Some newer deck names are vague and don't really explain what's actually happening. A perfect example would be Enchantress. Are they UG? Are they GW? It may sound weird to want to know this but these two decks work very differently. that's not a problem if you allow for the names to be unique and different.

Let's be honest though. Would you want to play: Green Creatures or ELVES!!! , UB Combo or THE EPIC STORM!!!
Granted there are some that who's name isn't all that exciting (Solitare).

The problem was that the soap boxes (broadcasters and writers) didn't know and/or respect the names while some players either didn't care to learn and/or got lazy while others failed to do enough to require the correction.

Now this unimaginative naming convention has become the standard... like paying $100+ on a single non-reserved listed card... I mean... Jace ain't no Shivan Dragon or nothing!

[Richard Cheese]

I got an SCG commentator read a Sealab synopsis during a live broadcast...I win.

[Koby]

I got an SCG commentator read a Sealab synopsis during a live broadcast...I win.

G.G. I tip my gentlemanly top hat to you, good sir!

[Megadeus]

I got an SCG commentator read a Sealab synopsis during a live broadcast...I win.

Lol I remember Watching that broadcast. I was laughing my ass off the whole time

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Also from what I remember from my Magic history, UWR tempo was SSS

SSS was Simic Sky Swallower.



:confused:

EDIT on topic:
I'm not sure if this "names affair" is that crucial. More anecdotal than anything else.
Also, I find the "Death and Taxes" name quite appropriate. When it comes to other names... well, it simply doesn't matter much. One needs to remeber few of the less obvious ones and that's it. No trouble at all, it's similar to knowing Richard is cool dude, instead of remembering a mantra "guy who lives next door and has brown hair is cool".
The fact that some cipher-names don't say much to newbies is pretty irrelevant, because I don't think that any more reasonable names would be really helpful.

A top8 written like:
Jund
Junk
Canadian Thresh
Zoo
ANT
SI
Narcobridge
SneakShow
might say nothing to a newbie, but...

...would the:
Card-Advantageous Green-Red-Black Midrange Deck
Black-White-Green Chase Rare Creatures
An Ultimate Red-Green-Blue Tempo
Four-Colours Aggro With Efficient Beaters
Resilient Ritual Based Storm With Ad Nauseam/Past in Flames Engine
Super Fast BG Combo With Draw-4 Chains
Sick Graveyard-Dependant Pile
Combo-Control Fueled By Show and Tell Aimed At Winning Through The Attack Phase
be that much better? And I'm not even starting about the whole concepts like aggro, tempo, etc., and the fact that many new players simly don't have a clue what's this about.

[Lord Seth]

Lol I remember Watching that broadcast. I was laughing my ass off the whole time
When/where did this happen? I want to see it now.

[ESG]

Faerie Stompy = where's the faerie?

I seriously still don't get what makes Stompy a Stompy.

The faerie is/was Pestermite. Faerie Stompy also is, or was, known as Sea Stompy, due to Sea Drake. The common thread among the Stompy decks of today is that they run Sol lands. Werewolf Stompy runs werewolves. I find the Stompy naming convention to be much more transparent than some deck names. I also find the Stompy names way more evocative than, say, "Mono-Green Chalice Aggro," which sounds like the deck was seized by government agents, stripped of all character, and stored in filing cabinet.

The Stompy that you referred to takes its name from a mono-green deck from the old Extended. I happened to find a great example of this, so I'll post the list for the young'uns on this forum.

Nicolai Herzog at the Gateway Masters Tournament (circa 2000):

2x Pouncing Jaguar
4x Wild Dogs
4x Skyshroud Elite
4x Ghazban Ogre
3x Rogue Elephant
4x River Boa
4x Elvish Spirit Guide
4x Rancor
4x Vine Dryad
4x Giant Growth
2x Wild Might
4x Land Grant
13x Forest
4x Wasteland

Sideboard:
4x Rushwood Legate
2x Cursed Totem
2x Lumbering Satyr
4x Emerald Charm
2x Winter Orb
1x Uktabi Orangutan

[kiblast]

By the way Death and Taxes is directly took from the phrase ''Nothing is certain bout Death and Taxes'' :laugh:
DnT is really difficult to master, a là goblin. Obviously, as a lover for legacy underdogs, I signaled this archetype to the fellow Vial.decks player in our group 4 years ago. Back then the deck was playing Benevolent Bodyguard…. so cool. DnT has always been an example of fine deck building and intelligent card choice in my eyes. Making bad cards working nicely together.

By the way, I love these names:

Dreaded Fish (Uwb Dreadnought + Fish creatures)
Fish itself it's funny and dates back to Merfolk original brews.
All the Parfait, English Breakfast, Cheerios, breakfast-esque themed names.
Urban Tempo (URB Fish)

Honestly I think that innovative and unintuitive deck names bring a merry and funky vibe to Legacy, which can be found only here and in Vintage. Look up at Modern metagame: UWR, Rock, Twin, UW Control,GW Aggro, BUG…those deck names are lame.

Edit: I'm totally calling my BUGstill deck ''Anacontrol (http://magiccards.info/query?q=anavolver&v=card&s=cname)'' from now on.:tongue:

[Grollub]

I miss the good old days where combo decks were named after Cereal. :'(


The Stompy that you referred to takes its name from a mono-green deck from the old Extended. I happened to find a great example of this, so I'll post the list for the young'uns on this forum.

Nicolai Herzog at the Gateway Masters Tournament (circa 2000):

~2000 and echo creatures? Psh. Lets go back to Svend's 1997 deck:

Señor Stompy
4x Fyndhorn Elves
4x Ghazban Ogre
3x Harvest Wurm
2x Jolrael's Centaur
2x Lhurgoyf
4x Quirion Ranger
4x Rogue Elephant
4x Spectral Bears
2x Uktabi Orangutan
2x Whirling Dervish
2x Bounty Of The Hunt
4x Giant Growth
4x Winter Orb

16x Forests
2x Heart Of Yavimaya


iirc from the IRC chats the name Stompy originated during Ice Age block, since the deck's creatures would just... Stomp on the opponent.

:D

[Lemnear]

Actually I prefer names that describe the decks core or gameplan which is by far telling more about the deck than a color-combination + Keycard like we have all over the web.

"UWR Delver" doesn't necessarily tell me if it's a tempo deck or a midrange approach. "NicFit" or "Parfait" tells you nothing unless you are deep into Legacy. Imagine you have to browse through mtgTop8.com and there there only fancy fantasy names ... you'd have to browse through every list to see a structure of a T8/16.

"Death & Taxes" is pretty accurate imo, as it Features taxing-effects on opponents mana. "Ad Nauseam Tendrils" makes the core and gameplan very clear and easy to categorize.

In essence, I understand BK's intention. I write "5-color-Goblins" on every sheet ... should be clear ;)

[Kayradis]

IMHO,
Kibler has only been a whiny bitch for the past couple of weeks.
Yes, the MTGO rant was justified, but seriously? Legacy deck names?
I feel like someone is asking for attention....

[Megadeus]

When/where did this happen? I want to see it now.

It was one of the SCG events that I think Koby or Phazonmutant was doing well with the deck and got close to 8ing if I remember correctly

[klaus]

For the same reason people nerd out about anything else, really.

If you're managing or watching coverage, the ideal deck name gives you the following information:

1) What color or colors the deck is;

2) Something about the archetype (control, midrange, combo, etc.);

3) Any other relevant defining feature of the deck

A name like "Death and Taxes" tells you absolutely nothing about what the deck is - it's just one of those names you have to memorize. Unfortunately, for people just casually watching coverage, or for people trying to do coverage with minimal Legacy background, some of these names are completely impenetrable. RUG Delver? Okay, easy. TES? A little harder, but probably something that's killing people with Tendrils. Four Horsemen, Nic Fit, or Solidarity? What the everloving fuck?

Of course, deck designers want to give decks unique or interesting names to add flair, but it really doesn't add anything.

Hardly anyone casually watches coverage of a format he doesn't care about. If there's actual interest, the deck names pose less of a hard to overcome barrier and add more flavor in turn.

[Luklinda]

If decks went by bland color+strategy names it would be easier for folks with higher profiles to coin cleverer options that catch on after the fact.

If it weren't for those meddling kids Maverick could be called BK Knights.

But then no-one would understand why I was playing in a flight suit blaring Kenny Loggins.

[AngryTroll]

I thought that the origin of the "Team America" name was related to the game plan: Show up, blow up your opponent's lands (Wasteland and Sinkhole), and then win with an overwhelming air force and ground pounders (Tombstalker and Goyf).

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I thought that the origin of the "Team America" name was related to the game plan: Show up, blow up your opponent's lands (Wasteland and Sinkhole), and then win with an overwhelming air force and ground pounders (Tombstalker and Goyf).

Then goblins should be called Team Soviet Union: show up with hordes of red infantry, first throw 'em under enemy tanks, then win with a immense wave.
If I'd be playing Goblins, I'd stand up from my chair for the alphastrike and scream "Uraaah!"

[Ziveeman]

I don't disagree that there needs to be better deck names for coverage. But it just seems silly to try to change deck names that people have been using for years (...that's why we still call it Affinity and not Robots, despite very little Affinity cards being used in the deck) - I feel like Kibler's article should be applied moving forward, not looking back.

People are going to call it what they want no matter what some pros say, so coverage needs to spearhead the charge for better deck names.

[Arsenal]

Meh, deck builders want to put their "stamp" on their decks, so they try to out-clever each other with these nonsensical deck names. This has been true since the beginning of Magic for every competitive format. I'm not quite sure why Legacy is getting singled out.

[Ziveeman]

Meh, deck builders want to put their "stamp" on their decks, so they try to out-clever each other with these nonsensical deck names. This has been true since the beginning of Magic for every competitive format. I'm not quite sure why Legacy is getting singled out.

Legacy is the only mainstream competitive format that still uses decks from that era of silly decknames.

[Barook]

Just look at Standard - does Mono X Devotion or RG Ramp sound exciting? Legacy hardly changes, so you should know what's behind a deck's name.

I prefer "Maverick" over "GWx Green Sun Zenith Zoo" or D&T over "Mono W Weenie Stax". It's only stuff like "Ooops! All Spells" that's retarded and whoever came up with this name deserves a kick into the balls.

[Arsenal]

Legacy is the only mainstream competitive format that still uses decks from that era of silly decknames.

True, but that's more a by-product of the longevity of Legacy and the fact that decks don't rotate out of existence. Stream monsters need to take the good (Legacy as a format) with the "bad" (the nonsensical decknames that deck builders try to get too cute with).

[TsumiBand]

I liked some of this, and agreed with aspects of it, but I don't think all the complain is valid in this article.

I don't understand why naming decks for their colors via the Shards is a bad thing. "Bant Aggro" is short, to the point, and easily vocalized. "GWU Aggro" is short and readable, but is less conversational. Sometimes you get lucky and a combo like RUG comes along and becomes "Rug Delver", but on the whole the Shards and Guilds are typically fine. Azorius and Golgari need not apply.

In fact, if they ever travel to Wedgeland and we get named affiliations for "two friendlies and an enemy" like WRB and the ever-popular WBG, that would be swell and fine by me. "Junk" seems to get applied more often to decks with Plains, Swamps and Forests in them than the actual concept of "Junk.dec" which I always understood to be "Really Good Spells in White, Black, and Green".

Some names I can do without. When I started playing, decks were named after cereal boxes and people were trying to determine how Gay Fish was stymying fully-powered decks in Vintage because it "had all these creatures". When Fish splashed Red for Lavamancer, people didn't initially call it "UR Fish", they called it "Gay-splash-Red" or "Gay/r". I love that deck pretty hard in a sentimental way, but honestly calling it "Gay" is entirely childish and I'm glad that names like Sex and Gay and whatnot seem to have faded out of popularity.

Verbal shorthand is just an inevitable part of any social lexicon, but *some* degree of descriptive insight should be applied to the name, IMO. RUG Delver says a lot in three syllables -- you're familiar with Magic so you know RUG implies colors, and Delver informs you on a lot of the card choices that would/could be in the deck. Good name. I can see getting a little upset about Death and Taxes, but 'Taxes' is an appropriate hook - deck plays Glowriders and Thalias and Thorn of Amethyst and shit, and we call that effect 'taxing' so it makes some sense. Maverick is a silly name though.

I mean, how deep does the rabbit hole go? Take 'Zoo' for example; we know that means efficient aggro creatures that don't typically do anything but smash. Naya Zoo is a good label for a deck, then -- but 'Zoo' is a colloquialism in Magic. Compare this to the phrase 'cantrip', which Magic players adopted but have *strongly* misappropriated. 'Cantrip' comes from an old word meaning "to deceive or coerce through the use of black magic or sorcery". Magicians -- like, sleight-of-hand magicians -- use 'cantrip' to refer to the act of palming a card and applying misdirection to make the act difficult to detect. Neither of these have anything to do with MtG 'cantrips', and if you told a magician that Magic players cantrip regularly, they'd assume we're a bunch of cheaters that palm cards whenever we can. Similarly, 'Zoo' only means something because we decided it did, but it's pretty entrenched. I don't think 'Zoo' needs to go, but then as long as we keep getting cards that work well with Show and Tell or Terminus it may just take care of itself.

When you write software, you try and name functions for what they actually do -- things like addNewPlayerToGame() or deletePornFromExternalDevice() or whatever - so now I don't need to dig through the code to see what it does unless it breaks, right? It tells me what it does in the name. A function named iLoveMyDog() or fnorptifyEachGirbitz() tells me nothing about what's under the hood, and I don't think I'm alone in saying so but god damn I hate reading other people's code, so that kind of thing just sucks. Deck names can be treated with similar scrutiny, I think.

It should be like a well-written newspaper article. The first paragraph should summarize the article in plain language. The rest of the article can get into the nitty-gritty, but that first paragraph should ideally just tell me what I need to know, such that I don't have to "read the whole paper" every morning -- I just see the first paragraph and decide whether it's germane to my interests, and either way I know that Something Happened Somewhere. "Cubs Win World Series Against Miami." "Seventeen Dead In Beirut Suicide Bombing." "Local Area Man Fellated By Alligator… oh, I might want to read that one."

I know that's boring and shitty, and we tend to fawn over decks that we created because they're ours, and we want people to go "I'm playing Tsumi Prison, but I changed the sideboard because Zilla Stompy is everywhere in this meta." or whatever. But just, some deck names are stupid, throw rocks at them. Or just rename them.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

"Local Area Man Fellated By Alligator… "

I know that's boring and shitty, and we tend to fawn over decks that we created because they're ours, and we want people to go "I'm playing Tsumi Prison, but I changed the sideboard because Zilla Stompy is everywhere in this meta." or whatever. But just, some deck names are stupid, throw rocks at them. Or just rename them.

:laugh:

Would you mind to brew a Tsumi Prison? Or at least Fellated_by_Alligator.dec?



I don't understand why naming decks for their colors via the Shards is a bad thing.
Because every time I hear "Bant" (or any other shard/guild for that matter) I immediatelly realize I'm playing children's game. We, the mature players of the most complex strategical game (second only to warfare) don't use this childish slang. Really, I hate all this Degacetagolgarigrixis stupidity. It's primarily aimed at and used by children. I'm not child.
It may be useful in conversation and it saves a lot of time and w/e, but I hate it.

[PirateKing]

Magic, especially Legacy and Vintage, are games steeped in lore and tradition. Some made by Wizards, some made by players. Who here calls Dark Confidant Bob? Who here calls Prodigal Sorcerer Tim? We call a GWU deck Bant because Wizards decided to name GWU Bant. We call a combo deck a breakfast cereal because we decided to name combo decks after cereals. If someone wants to wade into a format, know that Legacy is the deep end and they shouldn't complain if they can't swim. All you people moving into the country to get away from it all then complaining when farmers start at dawn and cow farts smell bad.


It's only stuff like "Ooops! All Spells" that's retarded and whoever came up with this name deserves a kick into the balls.

It's a combo deck and Cap'n Crunch's Oops! All Berries is a cereal. Maintaining tradition even today. We should be proud.


Compare this to the phrase 'cantrip', which Magic players adopted but have *strongly* misappropriated. 'Cantrip' comes from an old word meaning "to deceive or coerce through the use of black magic or sorcery". Magicians -- like, sleight-of-hand magicians -- use 'cantrip' to refer to the act of palming a card and applying misdirection to make the act difficult to detect. Neither of these have anything to do with MtG 'cantrips', and if you told a magician that Magic players cantrip regularly, they'd assume we're a bunch of cheaters that palm cards whenever we can.

Cantrip probably got it's name from D&D spells, cantrips being zero level spells. They are very limited in usefulness, turning a drink ice cold or steeping hot, making dazzling lights appear, parlor tricks and such. But they were spells that didn't count towards your spells per day, so they were 'free' spells. MtG cantrips are spells that don't decrease your cards in hand, so the same sort of principle. Why 0-level spells are called cantrips? Ask Mr. Gygax.

[Darkenslight]

Just look at Standard - does Mono X Devotion or RG Ramp sound exciting? Legacy hardly changes, so you should know what's behind a deck's name.

I prefer "Maverick" over "GWx Green Sun Zenith Zoo" or D&T over "Mono W Weenie Stax". It's only stuff like "Ooops! All Spells" that's retarded and whoever came up with this name deserves a kick into the balls.

"Oops! All Spells!" is actually known here as The Rogue Hermit, as it's built around a Rogue creature and it wants to goldfish on turn 1. Blame others for calling the deck that. However, that doens't mean that some decks couldn't do with sillier colloquialisms, like Belcher could easily be known as The Glass Cannon, for example.

[Tormod]

Its a system of identification, not so much for the decks but of the player's Legacy depth, because lets be honest, not everyone is a Legacy player.

If you know the lingo, then you're one of us.

[nedleeds]

http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/cardart/AP/degavolver_640.jpg

[Cynic13th]

I just started playing this game after a Ten year break and I have to say this whole topic seems pretty silly. The difference between Esper Control and Death and Taxes is non existent when returning or just starting the game. Deck names should be whatever the creator decides. It's their creation. If someone really wants to know what a deck does while watching streaming they can open a browser and google it... it's not hard.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Get over yourself

Speak for yourself too, while you're at it... I'm a "mature" player (whatever that means, not in highschool/college I'm guessing) and I have no problems using titles of color shards to describe decks. It doesn't make me make hate that I really like playing a children's game. Sorry that hearing those kooky words get you riled up.

Also since when is magic the most complex, strategical game (second only to warfare)? That seems pretty wrong... Ever play Chess? Or sports? Or board games?
Seriously? :laugh: Pure win.

[TsumiBand]

I just started playing this game after a Ten year break and I have to say this whole topic seems pretty silly. The difference between Esper Control and Death and Taxes is non existent when returning or just starting the game. Deck names should be whatever the creator decides. It's their creation. If someone really wants to know what a deck does while watching streaming they can open a browser and google it... it's not hard.

"It's on the Internet" isn't a great reason for anything ever, but you're not entirely wrong. Still, there's a difference between "can" and "should".

At the end of the day it's just a game, so it's a minor issue. But it doesn't necessarily facilitate easy communication on new ideas to name a deck after your high school mascot, or a card that isn't even in the deck. RUG Delver instantly informs you on like 50% of the putative decklist or more, because Delver has certain requirements and the cards in RUG that are good in Legacy AND work with Delver of Secrets are a relatively small set. It's hard to go wrong with such a name, unless you're a troll and just go with something like "BG Vampiric Tutor" and fail the Name Game.

I don't actually care much about any of this. If I ever build a deck, it's going to be named "Stan". Because I hate it when animals have people names, and I suspect other people do too.

"OHAI nice dog, what name" "hehe this is Adam" "u dog name Adam" "um yiss" "now i kill you"

Also Stan is my brother's name, and it's kind of a silly name. And who doesn't want to see those tournament pairings:

Round 4: Maverick vs Stan
Round 5: Stan vs Rug
Round 6: Stan vs Bant Stan

and then people would be all "na na na na na na na na BANT STAN"

[dunk]

Once again, blame Kibler. (http://bmkgaming.com/whats-in-a-name/) Seriously.

Also, I love childish names. When a friend came up with the name "Flashing Rectum" for his new deck, I knew it would be great (and yeah, it involves Flashing Academy Rector into play).

[Tormod]

and then people would be all "na na na na na na na na BANT STAN"

:tongue:

[apple713]

the problem is in legacy since it's eternal you can't just say "black white midrange" and expect someone to know what cards are in the deck. The cards in legacy pool are vast and change constantly. BW midrange today might be very different in 1 year.

The name give to a deck regardless of how nonsensical it is is just a way to recognize a list of cards.

[theillest]

The faerie is/was Pestermite...
Iirc, it was a deck before pestermite. Cloud of Faeries maybe?

Magic, especially Legacy and Vintage, are games steeped in lore and tradition...
This post was chock full of truth

[Ziveeman]

"Oops! All Spells!" is actually known here as The Rogue Hermit, as it's built around a Rogue creature and it wants to goldfish on turn 1. Blame others for calling the deck that. However, that doens't mean that some decks couldn't do with sillier colloquialisms, like Belcher could easily be known as The Glass Cannon, for example.

I prefer the deck name Goblins to Belcher, since it, you know, kills with Goblin tokens or Goblin Charbelcher. Much more accurate.

[Koby]

Legacy is the only mainstream competitive format that still uses decks from that era of silly decknames.

BBD's Sunny Delight would like to have a word with you.

[Julian23]

Dirty Kitty, anyone? Sunny Side Up?

To be honest, the abundance straight "boring" decknames is a trend that only came up over the last couple of years. Which is not a bad thing but I feel like giving up a lot of my past as a player if those very history-laden decknames were to disappear. Everybody remembers Cephalid Breakfast although it hasn't (ever?) been good in almost a decade. Nobody remembers...uh...RG Aggro in a random Standard environment.

[TsumiBand]

Nobody remembers...uh...RG Aggro in a random Standard environment.

That all I ever play in Standard. I totally remember that.

[GoblinSettler]

But then no-one would understand why I was playing in a flight suit blaring Kenny Loggins.

I would prefer the Kenny Loggins all day. Back when it was Thresh, Mav, and Blade on top I was hoping that calling the other two Goose and Iceman would catch on.

[Parcher]

I prefer the deck name Goblins to Belcher, since it, you know, kills with Goblin tokens or Goblin Charbelcher. Much more accurate.

Fucking win.

I love that a guy that played a G/W/r deck named "The Red Zone", a Treefolk deck named "Assassins:, a mono-Red LD deck named "Thundercats", and a Domain deck named "Vision Quest" is so confused by Legacy deck names. Kibler needs to get over himself.

[Arsenal]

I prefer decknames as opposed to just generic archetypes. Give me "Maverick" over "GBW Midrange" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Parcher]

For your entertainment; An old argument(one of six pages) from our Unicorn Forums between Jesse Hatfield, Chris Coppola, and Dave Price over this very subject. You'll have to read carefully to get through the quotes, since C/P removes the highlights. Anything prefaced by "X wrote", is a quote. You find the reply directly beneath, with no demarcation between the two:

by Mad Zur

If players have no information beyond the name, they are not going to have any meaningful understanding of the deck.

"Goblins" -- This deck has some number of Goblins in it. I guess it's probably red, since most Goblins are red.
"Chalice Affinity" -- This deck has at least one Affinity card, and some kind of Chalice.
"Merfolk" -- This deck has some number of Merfolk in it. It probably has blue, since most Merfolk are blue.
"Zoo" -- What the fuck is a Zoo? I don't know that card.
"Dreadstill" -- Sounds scary. Does it play Dread?

Interpreting deck names names without knowledge of the format is a useless endeavor. If you want to understand these, you have to "cheat" and find out that "Chalice" probably means "Chalice of the Void" because there are no other playable Chalices in Legacy, that "Chalice deck" is a shibboleth referring to a deck with Ancient Tomb and big creatures, that "Zoo" is a naming convention for multicolor aggro with burn and cheap creatures, and "*still" is a convention for decks that run Standstill. But even then, your knowledge is limited. How are you to know that Merfolk plays Standstill? That Goblins plays Wasteland and Rishadan Port but not Goblin Grenade? That the "Dread" in "Dreadstill" means Phyrexian Dreadnought and not Dread Return? It's not really possible to understand these decks in any meaningful way unless you know those things. You can only learn them by "cheating."


If you are so braindead that you need the actual name of the Magic deck to be entertaining, then perhaps Magic is not the right hobby for you. Deck names which are descriptive and efficient, as has been stated over and over, are the goal, and their success in their functionality is their hook. Being "catchy" in some unrelated, cultural way is not only utterly irrelevant to deck naming conventions, it also is purely subjective, and so pointless.

You seem to have lost focus. Insulting people who use the name "Solidarity" is different from saying that it's a bad name. Names are about communication. If people are more familiar with name A than name B but you insist on using name B because you like it better, you are hindering communication. Telling people to quit Magic is not really a solution to the problem.Mad Zur Posts: 113Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:37 pm


Re: Deck Names

by machinus » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:38 pm



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:While true that you can safely connect the name "Chris Coppola" to me in the context of this forum, it does not have anything to do with communicating information about me, and is irrelevant to the question of how to construct the best deck names. Uniquely identifying deck names could just as well be strings of 100 random alphanumeric digits, which would serve that purpose equally well as bullshit names, but contain just as much information about the actual decklist.

You're pretty close to grasping the point here. The name "Chris Coppola" has no more descriptive power than a string of 100 random digits. Just like the name "Solidarity." What I want to know is why you think "Solidarity" is an unacceptable name but "Chris Coppola" is acceptable. They are both equivalent to a random, meaningless sequence of characters.

Neither one is very functional or useful. I think people's names and stupid decknames are equally irrelevant.



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:Dave claimed that my name provided information about me, which is only true if you cheat and add information that you already know, which has nothing to do with my name. So it's not bizarre.

Using the information that knowing the name gives you access to has quite a lot to do with the name. If you don't know the name, you can't do it. If you do know the name, you can. People in the real world do not operate with this rule of yours that we aren't allowed to consult pre-existing knowledge or outside sources. Names should be practical in the real world, not in yours.

You do not automatically get other information from a random meaningless set of characters. Everyone has access to different information, and some people have access to no additional information at all. This is an unreliable and very impractical solution to the problem of conveying information. It's not a rule I made up, it is common sense.



Mad Zur wrote:

Deck names that require the player to access other obscure sources of information just to get some idea if what the deck is about are bad deck names. Many, in fact the majority of players do not read whatever internet forum you use, so that is not an acceptable method of conveying information. The most minimal set of information that can reasonably assumed is card names, general archetypal names, and most well-known vocabulary from mainstream Magic publications and websites that are directed at the general Magic audience.

If players have no information beyond the name, they are not going to have any meaningful understanding of the deck.

"Goblins" -- This deck has some number of Goblins in it. I guess it's probably red, since most Goblins are red.
"Chalice Affinity" -- This deck has at least one Affinity card, and some kind of Chalice.
"Merfolk" -- This deck has some number of Merfolk in it. It probably has blue, since most Merfolk are blue.
"Zoo" -- What the fuck is a Zoo? I don't know that card.
"Dreadstill" -- Sounds scary. Does it play Dread?

Interpreting deck names names without knowledge of the format is a useless endeavor. If you want to understand these, you have to "cheat" and find out that "Chalice" probably means "Chalice of the Void" because there are no other playable Chalices in Legacy, that "Chalice deck" is a shibboleth referring to a deck with Ancient Tomb and big creatures, that "Zoo" is a naming convention for multicolor aggro with burn and cheap creatures, and "*still" is a convention for decks that run Standstill. But even then, your knowledge is limited. How are you to know that Merfolk plays Standstill? That Goblins plays Wasteland and Rishadan Port but not Goblin Grenade? That the "Dread" in "Dreadstill" means Phyrexian Dreadnought and not Dread Return? It's not really possible to understand these decks in any meaningful way unless you know those things. You can only learn them by "cheating."

I already stated that you have to assume the player has knowledge of card names. That is minimal information. In that same explanation I also already stated that it is useful to assume knowledge of historic Magic names as well as information from mainstream websites, as it is actually plausible that many players have access to this information, while it is not realistic to assume that people are going to read the same obscure website that you do.

The minimal set of information that you have to assume the player has includes the decks most successful in tournaments. "Vial Goblins" gives you some information about the deck, as well as clearly identifies the deck with much more tournament success than any other deck this could possibly refer to. "Chalice Affinity" is quite a good name, as it tells you the deck is built around the Affinity mechanic, while also eschewing 1cc cards in favor of the disruptive power of Chalice. "Merfolk" tells you a limited amount about the deck, but again there is only one real Merfolk deck so this one identifies that uniqely. "Zoo" is a term from historical Magic lexicon; it is not as reliable as tournament data and could be replaced by something better, but is certainly better than something random as many people will understand it already. "Dreadstill" is obviously a portmanteau of two of the main cards in deck, and so is a fine name for the deck while also clearly defining it in the format.



Mad Zur wrote:

If you are so braindead that you need the actual name of the Magic deck to be entertaining, then perhaps Magic is not the right hobby for you. Deck names which are descriptive and efficient, as has been stated over and over, are the goal, and their success in their functionality is their hook. Being "catchy" in some unrelated, cultural way is not only utterly irrelevant to deck naming conventions, it also is purely subjective, and so pointless.

You seem to have lost focus. Insulting people who use the name "Solidarity" is different from saying that it's a bad name. Names are about communication. If people are more familiar with name A than name B but you insist on using name B because you like it better, you are hindering communication. Telling people to quit Magic is not really a solution to the problem.

There is some benefit to removing bad names from the pool, and I think that would definitely improve communication. That being said, I am certainly a pragmatist and have made the call both ways in the past when weighing the previous usage of names. Also, I think it would be a great solution to the problem of the most prolific stupid-name authors were to quit Magic.
machinus Posts: 43Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:22 pm



Re: Deck Names

by beastman » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:03 pm

It says volumes about our team that the longest thread by far is a circular argument that coppola has reigned you all into.
beastman Posts: 185Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:09 pm



Re: Deck Names

by Mad Zur » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:09 pm

If you'd like to type up those volumes, I'm sure someone would love to have a long discussion about it. :p

Apparently, when you hit "Submit," the forum software lets you know if someone's posted while you were working on your post and gives you a chance to change it. That's kind of cool.



machinus wrote:I already stated that you have to assume the player has knowledge of card names. That is minimal information. In that same explanation I also already stated that it is useful to assume knowledge of historic Magic names as well as information from mainstream websites, as it is actually plausible that many players have access to this information, while it is not realistic to assume that people are going to read the same obscure website that you do.

The minimal set of information that you have to assume the player has includes the decks most successful in tournaments. "Vial Goblins" gives you some information about the deck, as well as clearly identifies the deck with much more tournament success than any other deck this could possibly refer to. "Chalice Affinity" is quite a good name, as it tells you the deck is built around the Affinity mechanic, while also eschewing 1cc cards in favor of the disruptive power of Chalice. "Merfolk" tells you a limited amount about the deck, but again there is only one real Merfolk deck so this one identifies that uniqely. "Zoo" is a term from historical Magic lexicon; it is not as reliable as tournament data and could be replaced by something better, but is certainly better than something random as many people will understand it already. "Dreadstill" is obviously a portmanteau of two of the main cards in deck, and so is a fine name for the deck while also clearly defining it in the format.

Knowledge of card names is insufficient for understanding those decks. There are multiple cards in Magic that could be abbreviated "Chalice," "Dread," or "still." You have to know something about the format to know which cards those names probably refer to (and thanks to Dread Return, there are actually multiple Legacy-playable "Dread" cards). In order to know that a Chalice of the Void deck doesn't play 1cc spells, also you have to know that the card is usually cast with X=1 in this format. Knowing that a deck is based around Affinity is only somewhat helpful, and may be misleading -- after all, the most well-known Affinity decks in Magic's history played an awful lot of iconic cards that aren't in Chalice Affinity.

When you appeal to tournament data, the established lexicon, and the fact that only one existing deck can be accurately described by a name, you are using outside information from obscure websites. You are totally correct to describe the process people go through in understanding what these decks are, but it is the exact same process as figuring out what "Solidarity" is. It's an established name, it only ever referred to one deck, and it shows up in tournament results. If you can figure out that "Merfolk" is a mono-blue or blue-green deck with Standstill, Mutavault, Aether Vial, Stifle, Wasteland, etc., then you can figure out that "Solidarity" is a mono-blue High Tide deck that plays only instants or that "Mighty Quinn" is horrible.

It's true that there's a difference between the Magic lexicon and the Legacy lexicon. Someone is more likely to be familiar with "Zoo" than with "Solidarity." But when you're expecting them to know specifics about how winning Goblin decks have traditionally been built in Legacy, I don't think that's any better than expecting them to know what "Solidarity" means. You expect people to know what's been winning Legacy tournaments. I don't expect anything more obscure than that.


machinus wrote:There is some benefit to removing bad names from the pool, and I think that would definitely improve communication. That being said, I am certainly a pragmatist and have made the call both ways in the past when weighing the previous usage of names. Also, I think it would be a great solution to the problem of the most prolific stupid-name authors were to quit Magic.

Unfortunately, Legacy tournaments would be lonely without everyone who fails to measure up to your standards of professionalism. :<Mad Zur Posts: 113Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:37 pm




Re: Deck Names

by machinus » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:54 pm



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:I already stated that you have to assume the player has knowledge of card names. That is minimal information. In that same explanation I also already stated that it is useful to assume knowledge of historic Magic names as well as information from mainstream websites, as it is actually plausible that many players have access to this information, while it is not realistic to assume that people are going to read the same obscure website that you do.

The minimal set of information that you have to assume the player has includes the decks most successful in tournaments. "Vial Goblins" gives you some information about the deck, as well as clearly identifies the deck with much more tournament success than any other deck this could possibly refer to. "Chalice Affinity" is quite a good name, as it tells you the deck is built around the Affinity mechanic, while also eschewing 1cc cards in favor of the disruptive power of Chalice. "Merfolk" tells you a limited amount about the deck, but again there is only one real Merfolk deck so this one identifies that uniqely. "Zoo" is a term from historical Magic lexicon; it is not as reliable as tournament data and could be replaced by something better, but is certainly better than something random as many people will understand it already. "Dreadstill" is obviously a portmanteau of two of the main cards in deck, and so is a fine name for the deck while also clearly defining it in the format.


Knowledge of card names is insufficient for understanding those decks. There are multiple cards in Magic that could be abbreviated "Chalice," "Dread," or "still." You have to know something about the format to know which cards those names probably refer to (and thanks to Dread Return, there are actually multiple Legacy-playable "Dread" cards). In order to know that a Chalice of the Void deck doesn't play 1cc spells, also you have to know that the card is usually cast with X=1 in this format. Knowing that a deck is based around Affinity is only somewhat helpful, and may be misleading -- after all, the most well-known Affinity decks in Magic's history played an awful lot of iconic cards that aren't in Chalice Affinity.

The same criteria that apply to deck names also apply to cards. Chalice of the Void is orders of magnitude more competitive than any other card called Chalice, and so it's quite practical to use it that way.

It is all a practical compromise, to be sure, and there is limited space in a deck name. Assuming minimal knowledge and some basic reasoning ability on the part of the player allows decknames to be very informative despite their limitations. I think it is much more useful than any other way to treat deck names, so it is the best way to do it.



Mad Zur wrote:When you appeal to tournament data, the established lexicon, and the fact that only one existing deck can be accurately described by a name, you are using outside information from obscure websites.


Wizards.com is not obscure. Historically there have been many other publications with a moderate influence over Magic lexcion and general knowledge, like Sideboard and Starcitygames. Making the assumption that people know things from these sources has a minimal cost in terms of deck accuracy, but a large payoff in terms of vocabulary. With the exception of starcitygames, there are no unofficial websites or publications with any general audience in Magic, and so they are not acceptable sources because their cost in accuracy is far too high.



Mad Zur wrote:You are totally correct to describe the process people go through in understanding what these decks are, but it is the exact same process as figuring out what "Solidarity" is. It's an established name, it only ever referred to one deck, and it shows up in tournament results. If you can figure out that "Merfolk" is a mono-blue or blue-green deck with Standstill, Mutavault, Aether Vial, Stifle, Wasteland, etc., then you can figure out that "Solidarity" is a mono-blue High Tide deck that plays only instants or that "Mighty Quinn" is horrible.


This is wrong. If I am 1/10th of a competent deckbuilder, I know the space of possible cards that could be included in a competitive decklist that I would have heard about is very small. If I am 1/5th a competent deckbuilder I have attempted this construction myself and have realized the space of probable cards is probably only slightly larger than the number needed to build the deck in first place (hence it's delay in introduction). This requires only some basic reasoning and a minimal set of generally available knowledge, yet is a plenty of information for just one word in a deck name. And, obviously, it is more than appropriate to keep using it as it describes the deck accurately and is unique in competitive magic.



Mad Zur wrote:It's true that there's a difference between the Magic lexicon and the Legacy lexicon. Someone is more likely to be familiar with "Zoo" than with "Solidarity." But when you're expecting them to know specifics about how winning Goblin decks have traditionally been built in Legacy, I don't think that's any better than expecting them to know what "Solidarity" means. You expect people to know what's been winning Legacy tournaments. I don't expect anything more obscure than that.


Knowing successful decks is basic, general knowledge. What some person types on an obscure forum that very few people read is not an acceptable source of information. The cost in accuracy is far too high to use these weird names, whereas the cost in appeal to the audience is quite low in using general knowledge. So it's quite an easy compromise to make.
machinus Posts: 43Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:22 pm




Re: Deck Names

by Mad Zur » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:29 pm



machinus wrote:The same criteria that apply to deck names also apply to cards. Chalice of the Void is orders of magnitude more competitive than any other card called Chalice, and so it's quite practical to use it that way.

It is all a practical compromise, to be sure, and there is limited space in a deck name. Assuming minimal knowledge and some basic reasoning ability on the part of the player allows decknames to be very informative despite their limitations. I think it is much more useful than any other way to treat deck names, so it is the best way to do it.

A good name is a very powerful way to convey information when the listener is knowledgeable enough to know what it refers to. If you're knowledgeable about the format and not the deck, you can get some minimal information from a descriptive name, but not much at all. You've demonstrated how to figure out that Chalice Affinity plays Chalice of the Void and at least one spell with Affinity for something. If you have some knowledge of typical uses of Chalice in Legacy (although that's getting kind of obscure since those decks aren't very common and kind of suck), you might guess that it doesn't play any 1cc spells, that it uses Ancient Tomb, and that has some other kind of disruption elements. If you know about Magic history, you can be pretty sure "Affinity" means "Affinity for Artifacts" and is associated with the powerful Mirrodin-era decks, so the deck probably has some other artifacts. You even know of a whole lot of powerful spells that typically go in Affinity decks. Of course, the deck doesn't play most of them, like Ravager or Disciple. That's about as far as you can go without getting into complete speculation. (If you read obscure websites and know that some people use terms like "Chalice Aggro" and "Chalice decks" to refer to a certain kind of strategy, you can get more information. But if you don't know decks by their names, you probably don't know archetypes by their names either.)


Wizards.com is not obscure. Historically there have been many other publications with a moderate influence over Magic lexcion and general knowledge, like Sideboard and Starcitygames. Making the assumption that people know things from these sources has a minimal cost in terms of deck accuracy, but a large payoff in terms of vocabulary. With the exception of starcitygames, there are no unofficial websites or publications with any general audience in Magic, and so they are not acceptable sources because their cost in accuracy is far too high.

I'm not sure why you think names are only used on The Source. StarCity has published articles referring to decks using such useless names as "Solidarity," "Team America," "Eva Green," "Iggy Pop," "Deadguy Ale," and many more.


This is wrong. If I am 1/10th of a competent deckbuilder, I know the space of possible cards that could be included in a competitive decklist that I would have heard about is very small. If I am 1/5th a competent deckbuilder I have attempted this construction myself and have realized the space of probable cards is probably only slightly larger than the number needed to build the deck in first place (hence it's delay in introduction). This requires only some basic reasoning and a minimal set of generally available knowledge, yet is a plenty of information for just one word in a deck name. And, obviously, it is more than appropriate to keep using it as it describes the deck accurately and is unique in competitive magic.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is it that every competent deckbuilder has already built every deck, so all you have to do is figure out which one it is? And you can do that based on the name of a card or two, or a creature type, or a mechanic? If I am 1/2 of a competent deckbuilder, I know that there are multiple ways to build a deck including a certain card or combination of cards. Often, more than one are competitive, but even if they aren't, I also know that people don't always play the best decks.

If a person hears about "Dreadstill," they might be able to figure out that it plays Dreadnought, Stifle, and Standstill. They might figure that it has Wasteland and Mishra's Factory, to make Stifle and Standstill more effective, respectively. But to expect them to conclude that it plays Counterbalance is absurd. Maybe the deck is built more aggressively than that. Maybe the blue splash is lighter. And maybe it should have Counterbalance in it but doesn't. You really don't know from the name, but it turns out to be a huge part of the deck.


Knowing successful decks is basic, general knowledge. What some person types on an obscure forum that very few people read is not an acceptable source of information. The cost in accuracy is far too high to use these weird names, whereas the cost in appeal to the audience is quite low in using general knowledge. So it's quite an easy compromise to make.

I'm not sure how people are finding information about successful decks without encountering the names of those decks. Again, names are used in more places than The Source. Even names that aren't descriptive. If you're saying that names known to greater quantities of people should be given preference, I agree. If a name is not actually used, like "Reset High Tide," it's a bad name.Mad Zur Posts: 113Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:37 pm




Re: Deck Names

by machinus » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:11 pm



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:The same criteria that apply to deck names also apply to cards. Chalice of the Void is orders of magnitude more competitive than any other card called Chalice, and so it's quite practical to use it that way.

It is all a practical compromise, to be sure, and there is limited space in a deck name. Assuming minimal knowledge and some basic reasoning ability on the part of the player allows decknames to be very informative despite their limitations. I think it is much more useful than any other way to treat deck names, so it is the best way to do it.

A good name is a very powerful way to convey information when the listener is knowledgeable enough to know what it refers to. If you're knowledgeable about the format and not the deck, you can get some minimal information from a descriptive name, but not much at all. You've demonstrated how to figure out that Chalice Affinity plays Chalice of the Void and at least one spell with Affinity for something. If you have some knowledge of typical uses of Chalice in Legacy (although that's getting kind of obscure since those decks aren't very common and kind of suck), you might guess that it doesn't play any 1cc spells, that it uses Ancient Tomb, and that has some other kind of disruption elements. If you know about Magic history, you can be pretty sure "Affinity" means "Affinity for Artifacts" and is associated with the powerful Mirrodin-era decks, so the deck probably has some other artifacts. You even know of a whole lot of powerful spells that typically go in Affinity decks. Of course, the deck doesn't play most of them, like Ravager or Disciple. That's about as far as you can go without getting into complete speculation. (If you read obscure websites and know that some people use terms like "Chalice Aggro" and "Chalice decks" to refer to a certain kind of strategy, you can get more information. But if you don't know decks by their names, you probably don't know archetypes by their names either.)


You've just described a successful deck name. "Chalice Affinity" provides a lot of information, and it is bizarre to expect more from a two-word deck name. It does a fine job of conveying accurate information efficiently, as well as increasing in information content the more basic information the player has about the format. "Chalice Affinity" is an example of a good deck name.



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:Wizards.com is not obscure. Historically there have been many other publications with a moderate influence over Magic lexcion and general knowledge, like Sideboard and Starcitygames. Making the assumption that people know things from these sources has a minimal cost in terms of deck accuracy, but a large payoff in terms of vocabulary. With the exception of starcitygames, there are no unofficial websites or publications with any general audience in Magic, and so they are not acceptable sources because their cost in accuracy is far too high.

I'm not sure why you think names are only used on The Source. StarCity has published articles referring to decks using such useless names as "Solidarity," "Team America," "Eva Green," "Iggy Pop," "Deadguy Ale," and many more.

Starcitygames has a conglomeration of bad and good articles about Legacy. Sometimes deck names are used for bad reasons, and public space has been wasted on poor names. In some rare cases this has had a lasting effect on the common knowledge of the format, but most of the time people use normal deck names. Regardless, a bad deck name unfortunately getting stuck in the lexicon is not a defense of using stupid names for decks.

Each deck name is a separate case anyway. I have varying opinions of the ones you just mentioned.



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:This is wrong. If I am 1/10th of a competent deckbuilder, I know the space of possible cards that could be included in a competitive decklist that I would have heard about is very small. If I am 1/5th a competent deckbuilder I have attempted this construction myself and have realized the space of probable cards is probably only slightly larger than the number needed to build the deck in first place (hence it's delay in introduction). This requires only some basic reasoning and a minimal set of generally available knowledge, yet is a plenty of information for just one word in a deck name. And, obviously, it is more than appropriate to keep using it as it describes the deck accurately and is unique in competitive magic.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Try reading my post again, and this time just stick to the statements I actually made.



Mad Zur wrote:If a person hears about "Dreadstill," they might be able to figure out that it plays Dreadnought, Stifle, and Standstill. They might figure that it has Wasteland and Mishra's Factory, to make Stifle and Standstill more effective, respectively. But to expect them to conclude that it plays Counterbalance is absurd. Maybe the deck is built more aggressively than that. Maybe the blue splash is lighter. And maybe it should have Counterbalance in it but doesn't. You really don't know from the name, but it turns out to be a huge part of the deck.


It is completely irrelevant whether or not you can conclude that the deck plays Counterbalance. The deck name has already provided you with a lot of information about its contents, and more about its strategy if you have some general knowledge about the format. This is exactly what it is supposed to do, and it is a successful deck name. It would be bizarre to expect the deck name to provide more information.



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:Knowing successful decks is basic, general knowledge. What some person types on an obscure forum that very few people read is not an acceptable source of information. The cost in accuracy is far too high to use these weird names, whereas the cost in appeal to the audience is quite low in using general knowledge. So it's quite an easy compromise to make.

I'm not sure how people are finding information about successful decks without encountering the names of those decks. Again, names are used in more places than The Source. Even names that aren't descriptive. If you're saying that names known to greater quantities of people should be given preference, I agree. If a name is not actually used, like "Reset High Tide," it's a bad name.

I used Reset High Tide a few times in my articles. It is a much better name than "Solidarity." If that deck were relevant and I were to write an article mentioning it, I would use "Reset High Tide." I have used both in the past for audience reasons, but now that Legacy is played by more people it would be absolutely wrong to sacrifice accuracy and relevance in the general audience for entertainment value for a very small minority, even if they did have tournament credentials (...).
machinus Posts: 43Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:22 pm




Re: Deck Names

by Mad Zur » Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:55 pm



machinus wrote:You've just described a successful deck name. "Chalice Affinity" provides a lot of information, and it is bizarre to expect more from a two-word deck name. It does a fine job of conveying accurate information efficiently, as well as increasing in information content the more basic information the player has about the format. "Chalice Affinity" is an example of a good deck name.

It communicates the fact that the deck plays Chalice and some number of Affinity cards. In what situation is that useful? When am I significantly helped by this basic information about a deck alone?


machinus wrote:Starcitygames has a conglomeration of bad and good articles about Legacy. Sometimes deck names are used for bad reasons, and public space has been wasted on poor names. In some rare cases this has had a lasting effect on the common knowledge of the format, but most of the time people use normal deck names. Regardless, a bad deck name unfortunately getting stuck in the lexicon is not a defense of using stupid names for decks.

This rant doesn't seem relevant. My point is that this obscurity thing is overblown, because real non-Source people and places use all sorts of deck names.


Each deck name is a separate case anyway. I have varying opinions of the ones you just mentioned.

None of them are descriptive. A couple are actually derived from something about the deck, but you wouldn't be able to tell that from the name.


Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:This is wrong. If I am 1/10th of a competent deckbuilder, I know the space of possible cards that could be included in a competitive decklist that I would have heard about is very small. If I am 1/5th a competent deckbuilder I have attempted this construction myself and have realized the space of probable cards is probably only slightly larger than the number needed to build the deck in first place (hence it's delay in introduction). This requires only some basic reasoning and a minimal set of generally available knowledge, yet is a plenty of information for just one word in a deck name. And, obviously, it is more than appropriate to keep using it as it describes the deck accurately and is unique in competitive magic.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.



Try reading my post again, and this time just stick to the statements I actually made.

OK, let's walk through it:


machinus wrote:This is wrong. If I am 1/10th of a competent deckbuilder, I know the space of possible cards that could be included in a competitive decklist that I would have heard about is very small.

In any competitive decklist, or in a decklist that could be described by a certain name? And how do you know how competitive the actual deck is?


If I am 1/5th a competent deckbuilder I have attempted this construction myself

What construction? A deck? Which deck? A deck with Standstill and Dreadnought?


and have realized the space of probable cards is probably only slightly larger than the number needed to build the deck in first place

"Slightly" is pretty subjective. There are enough possibilities that you wouldn't know how this particular person chose to build the deck.


(hence it's delay in introduction).

I'm lost on this one. What introduction? What delay?


This requires only some basic reasoning and a minimal set of generally available knowledge, yet is a plenty of information for just one word in a deck name. And, obviously, it is more than appropriate to keep using it as it describes the deck accurately and is unique in competitive magic.

Again, it just doesn't seem like much information.


Mad Zur wrote:It is completely irrelevant whether or not you can conclude that the deck plays Counterbalance. The deck name has already provided you with a lot of information about its contents,

2-5 cards, depending on how many assumptions you're willing to make. What does that give you? You still need to see a list or talk to someone who knows something if you want to build the deck, learn about its matchups, prepare for it, or basically have any useful understanding of how it works.


and more about its strategy if you have some general knowledge about the format. This is exactly what it is supposed to do, and it is a successful deck name.

What does the name tell you about its strategy?


It would be bizarre to expect the deck name to provide more information.

Absolutely. But I think it would also be bizarre to make a big deal of that minimal level of information. Who is helped by knowing a tiny portion of a decklist?


machinus wrote:I used Reset High Tide a few times in my articles. It is a much better name than "Solidarity." If that deck were relevant and I were to write an article mentioning it, I would use "Reset High Tide." I have used both in the past for audience reasons, but now that Legacy is played by more people it would be absolutely wrong to sacrifice accuracy and relevance in the general audience for entertainment value for a very small minority, even if they did have tournament credentials (...).

I think that would be a questionable move, since a lot of people know the deck by the name "Solidarity." Insisting on a name you like rather than a name that's actually used does sacrifice accuracy and relevance.Mad Zur Posts: 113Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:37 pm



Re: Deck Names

by machinus » Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:35 pm



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:You've just described a successful deck name. "Chalice Affinity" provides a lot of information, and it is bizarre to expect more from a two-word deck name. It does a fine job of conveying accurate information efficiently, as well as increasing in information content the more basic information the player has about the format. "Chalice Affinity" is an example of a good deck name.

It communicates the fact that the deck plays Chalice and some number of Affinity cards. In what situation is that useful? When am I significantly helped by this basic information about a deck alone?

Perhaps you did not understand what this discussion was about when you joined in. A "deck name" is a title given to a deck to identify it; good deck names are those that communicate some material information about the deck just from the name alone, and remain unique and accurate identifiers after you know the list.

If you have to ask when it is useful, you have missed the point entirely.



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:Starcitygames has a conglomeration of bad and good articles about Legacy. Sometimes deck names are used for bad reasons, and public space has been wasted on poor names. In some rare cases this has had a lasting effect on the common knowledge of the format, but most of the time people use normal deck names. Regardless, a bad deck name unfortunately getting stuck in the lexicon is not a defense of using stupid names for decks.

This rant doesn't seem relevant. My point is that this obscurity thing is overblown, because real non-Source people and places use all sorts of deck names.

And little kids at the elementary school down the street can't pronouce "phrexyian" so they call it something wrong. Which has just as much bearing on what a good deck name is as joke names people may or may not use when they are not winning tournaments. So, none. Next point?



Mad Zur wrote:

Each deck name is a separate case anyway. I have varying opinions of the ones you just mentioned.

None of them are descriptive. A couple are actually derived from something about the deck, but you wouldn't be able to tell that from the name.

Some of them are descriptive. It depends on what specific information you have before hearing them; none of it really fits into the minimum knowledge standard that is followed for good deck names, but they are not all pure bullshit like many other names.



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:This is wrong. If I am 1/10th of a competent deckbuilder, I know the space of possible cards that could be included in a competitive decklist that I would have heard about is very small.

In any competitive decklist, or in a decklist that could be described by a certain name? And how do you know how competitive the actual deck is?

Most cards are unplayable in Legacy. If a deck has any significance in Legacy, it's playable. If you don't know what good and bad cards are, don't worry about deck names just yet.



Mad Zur wrote:

If I am 1/5th a competent deckbuilder I have attempted this construction myself

What construction? A deck? Which deck? A deck with Standstill and Dreadnought?

Decks that involve potentially playable cards are a good place to start when trying out a new format. Getting a 12/12 trampler for two mana and two cards certainly has potential, and is a good example of a deck to try to build.



Mad Zur wrote:

and have realized the space of probable cards is probably only slightly larger than the number needed to build the deck in first place

"Slightly" is pretty subjective. There are enough possibilities that you wouldn't know how this particular person chose to build the deck.

Again, if the deck has any relevance to Legacy, there are very few ways to build it so that it will be competitive. If sometimes you don't know the tech already, then you might be hoping for too much from a short name. Deck names are two or three words, it's a limitation.



Mad Zur wrote:

(hence it's delay in introduction).

I'm lost on this one. What introduction? What delay?

Tangential at best. Figure it out, or not.



Mad Zur wrote:

This requires only some basic reasoning and a minimal set of generally available knowledge, yet is a plenty of information for just one word in a deck name. And, obviously, it is more than appropriate to keep using it as it describes the deck accurately and is unique in competitive magic.

Again, it just doesn't seem like much information.

And again, you are missing the objective in naming decks.



Mad Zur wrote:

Mad Zur wrote:It is completely irrelevant whether or not you can conclude that the deck plays Counterbalance. The deck name has already provided you with a lot of information about its contents,

2-5 cards, depending on how many assumptions you're willing to make. What does that give you? You still need to see a list or talk to someone who knows something if you want to build the deck, learn about its matchups, prepare for it, or basically have any useful understanding of how it works.

You already listed in some good detail what the information is. I am sure if you read your own post again you will see how much information is communicated in just that one word. That is a successful deck name.



Mad Zur wrote:

and more about its strategy if you have some general knowledge about the format. This is exactly what it is supposed to do, and it is a successful deck name.

What does the name tell you about its strategy?

It is fairly obvious what the strategy of "Chalice Affinity" is. If some people don't get it right away, that is an acceptable cost for not taking 2000 words for a deck name.



Mad Zur wrote:

It would be bizarre to expect the deck name to provide more information.

Absolutely. But I think it would also be bizarre to make a big deal of that minimal level of information. Who is helped by knowing a tiny portion of a decklist?

I don't know how better to explain to you the concept of a deck name than to suggest you go reread my posts.



Mad Zur wrote:

machinus wrote:I used Reset High Tide a few times in my articles. It is a much better name than "Solidarity." If that deck were relevant and I were to write an article mentioning it, I would use "Reset High Tide." I have used both in the past for audience reasons, but now that Legacy is played by more people it would be absolutely wrong to sacrifice accuracy and relevance in the general audience for entertainment value for a very small minority, even if they did have tournament credentials (...).

I think that would be a questionable move, since a lot of people know the deck by the name "Solidarity." Insisting on a name you like rather than a name that's actually used does sacrifice accuracy and relevance.

It is the obvious thing to do. Everybody who knows the deck will know what "Reset High Tide" is. People who have never heard of either will see two cards, know it revolves around those two cards, and have a good idea about what the deck is about before even seeing the list (in case you didn't catch it this time, that is the point of deck names). The other name has only incidental value and should be replaced with something better.

If you figure out some way to compress a 2000 word primer into three English words, please let me know. Until then you may want to reassess your concept of deck naming.
machinus Posts: 43Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:22 pm

[Koby]

I don't care about Legacy decks names anymore.

I care about Wall of Text.

DEATH BY WALL OF TEXT X_X

[H]

Its a system of identification, not so much for the decks but of the player's Legacy depth, because lets be honest, not everyone is a Legacy player.

If you know the lingo, then you're one of us.

Exactly. Deck names in Legacy are more about ratifying ingroups and outgroups, while also fulfilling the deck-builder's desire to "put a stamp on" the game. We don't get to make cards, but we do get to innovate decks, so placing it's name gives us the ability to use unbridled creativity (since we can only be so creative in card choices, nomenclature is many orders of magnitude more open-ended). I, for one, applaud all terrible deck names, and actively promote that there should be even more. Magic cards have flavor, and that is part of what makes the game special for people. Metagames shouldn't be devoid of that flavor, in fact i think they should have more of it.

Speaking of this, someone should make a website, or a compendium here, with deck names, short history of the archetype and it's play style/card choices in it, so people can look things up, read about magic history, etc.

[Lord Seth]

Speaking of this, someone should make a website, or a compendium here, with deck names, short history of the archetype and it's play style/card choices in it, so people can look things up, read about magic history, etc.
There's a fairly decent one here (http://www.azmagicplayers.com/news/the-april-2012-legacy-primer-summary/), though it's a bit out of date now.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Get over yourself

Speak for yourself too, while you're at it... I'm a "mature" player (whatever that means, not in highschool/college I'm guessing) and I have no problems using titles of color shards to describe decks. It doesn't make me make hate that I really like playing a children's game. Sorry that hearing those kooky words get you riled up.

Also since when is magic the most complex, strategical game (second only to warfare)? That seems pretty wrong... Ever play Chess? Or sports? Or board games?
Dude, your today's PM made me literally LMAO! It goes very well with your above post, a post that was so full of feigned seriousness and pretended misunderstanding, that for a minute I really thought that your wits detector must be broken. Color me trolled!
A high five for you!

http://zerowoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/high-five-HD-Wallpapers13.jpg

[prateta]

Then goblins should be called Team Soviet Union: show up with hordes of red infantry, first throw 'em under enemy tanks, then win with a immense wave.
If I'd be playing Goblins, I'd stand up from my chair for the alphastrike and scream "Uraaah!"

This is brilliant :-D renaming my deck now and using it forever, thanks! :-D

[lordofthepit]

If decks were named after something descriptive, it would be much easier to follow for the uninitiated player.

This weekend, I'm hoping to tune into some football games featuring the Seattle Dominant Defensive Back Units vs. the San Francisco Run Heavy Offense. If I get out a bit earlier, I can probably watch the Denver Passing Attack vs. the New England Balanced Team.

[Mr. Froggy]

I really like Death & Taxes as a deck name, I feel it says a lot about it. Can't get much simpler than this: "You will be taxed; you will die."

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The explanation of the current age of "Stompy," btw:

Originally, "Stompy" meant "Big Dumb Green Things" and became a relevant Standard deck in the Tempest/Urza's period, lead by cards like Rogue Elephant, River Boa, and Rancor. "10 Land Stompy" was the ultimate evolution of this strategy, moving to Extended and then 1.5 (which was then 1.5.) It was basically the green counterpart to Sligh, just trying to race a combo deck and pump out damage before the control decks of the period could stop them.

This list (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/mdvarticle_primer_stompy_primer.htm) is pretty representative, although some of the logic used in the strategy there is pretty questionable.

At any rate; So for a while the top deck in 1.5 by a fairly wide margin was a build of Landstill. These builds had certain features alien to the builds of today; they were enabled by Mana Drain and ran Nevinyrral's Disk, which could be dropped off Drain mana, as their sweeper. They also usually ran Chain of Vapor which could return Disk after activation for a second usage.

At any rate, because Troll Ascetic couldn't be targeted and could regen from Disk, it was a very powerful card against them, and Godzilla developed a deck called Zilla Stompy that had, amongst other tricks, turn 1 Birds into turn 2 Troll, with a turn 3 Rancor on the Troll as a frequent line of play. Don't even remember what the red was for actually, probably some amount of burn and probably FTK.

It wasn't that good against the other top decks in the meta, like Dragon and Welder-Mud, but Zilla Stompy did beat up on Landstill and was popular for a while with some players.

Then came the banned list separation and while the deck didn't actually lose much, it became much worse in the meta. Landstill survived the rotation, and was even for a while the top deck again, but in very different builds running Wrath over Disk. And Survival and Goblins were much more popular.

About this time Zilla came up with another deck he called "Angel Stompy" for apparently no reason other than his last deck had been X-Stompy and this was a naming trend he was developing. Angel Stompy actually didn't look that much like the Angel Stompy lists you see today; it ran Isamaru and Mother of Runes, no Chalice. It was basically White Weenie with Sol-Lands to make it easier to afford Exalted Angel, equipment, and Cataclysm.

There was a period of a couple years where Angel Stompy remained a very popular and reasonably successful deck and the naming convention got switched around after that so that "Stompy" now meant "Deck fueled by Sol-Lands and Chrome Mox," and Faerie Stompy was the first one to add Chalices, back when it also ran actual faeries.

[Michael Keller]

Article by Adam Barnello aka Nightmare (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/recurring-nightmares-a-rose-by-any-other-name/)

Apparently Pros hate this forum's deck names. Some of them suck. So does Quick'n'Toast, Boat Brew, Caw Go, and "The Sunny Delight: Black Cherry" (http://www.starcitygames.com/article/27425_Black-Suns-Zenith.html).

So why are Pros (or maybe even just Stone Blade Entertainment designers) hating on gimmicky deck names? Read more and discuss.

There is no such thing as a "professional" Magic player - same with poker. You can argue with me until you die, but those two terms do not go hand in hand, I'm sorry.

Therefore, I could care less what..."pros"...think.

[TsumiBand]

Getting paid to play != professional?

Sorry, what's the line regarding genuine professional activities? In case I'm accidentally in the wrong line of work, since being professional is part of the whole Srs Adult Is Srs thing. I got a kid on the way, I can't fuck around anymore.

sent from phone, don't be a dick

[dunk]

Thanks for the insight, IBA. Used to the green Stompy decks I never understood why people called Chalice decks "Stompy" which led to a lot of retarded arguments.

[FieryBalrog]

There is nothing more hideously boring and dull than a format consisting of decks called "COLORS" + "GENERIC LABEL"

NAYA AGGRO
GOLGARI CONTROL
AZORIUS CONTROL
JUND JUNDINESS
GOLGARI MID-RANGE

Remember that Standard deck from 5 years ago that was cool? I think it was called "GOLGARI MID-RANGE".

[Technics]

Getting paid to play != professional?

Sorry, what's the line regarding genuine professional activities? In case I'm accidentally in the wrong line of work, since being professional is part of the whole Srs Adult Is Srs thing. I got a kid on the way, I can't fuck around anymore.

sent from phone, don't be a dick

Define paid. I went to a SCG event and made 50 bucks am i a pro? The normal definition of pro is that it is you sole profession and you have no side jobs. There are no magic players that are able to do that.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There is nothing more hideously boring and dull than a format consisting of decks called "COLORS" + "GENERIC LABEL"

NAYA AGGRO
GOLGARI CONTROL
AZORIUS CONTROL
JUND JUNDINESS
GOLGARI MID-RANGE

Remember that Standard deck from 5 years ago that was cool? I think it was called "GOLGARI MID-RANGE".

It's true, it's harder to get attached to something that doesn't have an actual name of its own. There's no emotional connection. (http://www.goodgamery.com/pmo/c028.htm)