Classifying Decks (Use of staple cards or the strategies w/in them)

Hi! I'm not sure if this fits into this thread.

I'm just wondering what makes decks classify into particular decks?

Does the choice of cards make a deck into a particular archetype generally or the strategy that the deck offers?

Because for one, I'm running a Wbg deck but can't really consider it Rock, W/G Maverick, Deadguy, Eva Green (Splash white) and so on and so forth.

Perhaps it falls into Death and Taxes but the problem is, I don't have some of the staple cards there.

Say for example, I don't have the staple cards (Bobs, Wasteland, etc.) which usually belong to Rock, Deadguy, and G/W Maverick.

G/W Maverick offers Land Disruption but i don't have the "mother" of all land disruption so far (Wasteland).

Does that mean I'm taking a different route on my deck for the lack of the staple cards?

First of all: The cards in your deck = your strategy.

The name from decks comes obv from the strategy. A lot of decks begin with staples => 4 fow 4 daze 4 brainstorm 4 ponder... but only a few cards let you classify the deck if its Counterbalance, No-Bant, Bant, tempothresh usw....

What's your list?

Sounds like Junk.

Really, it's just point of view. The whole naming thing is actually kind of silly when you get right down to it. I could build a straight up list of Doomsday Tendrils and add a DanDan to it. Does that make it Doomsday Tendrils with a DanDan in it or a new deck? Most people say it's just adding a card, but I could pitch the benefits of how it attacks vs control so much better all day and claim all kinds of things. Now how many cards like Giant Shark, Seasinger, and other junk like that do I have to add before people can't call it Doomsday Tendrils anymore and it's some other pile of junk?

The same goes for decks like Counterbalance Bant. How many cards like Standstill or others do I have to add to call it Landstill or something? Better yet the differences between It's the Fear and BUG control get even slighter.

It's all point of view. If anything, SCG hardly ever gets the names right anyway and Wizards is just about as bad.

@ hdh_cthulhu and dahcmai, thanks for the comments.. There have just been times when I'm trying to adjust my deck to particular strategies which do not result to that play of style completely (sub-par), thus making me easily change the contents of my deck..

@kusumoto, well, my list includes Kotr, Qasali P., SoW, Flickerwisp, Scullers, etc but no Tarmos and Bobs.

It plays like DnT w/out the soft lock and compensates it with disruption. I guess Junk and Taxes.. hehe

thanks.

This is actually a better thread than it looks like ^^

Dahcmai said it all correctly, but something regular to this forum is the miss-naming issue. Sometimes, some people simply get what newcomers call a "netdeck list" and change some cards with "subpar" ones, and asks in the thread "what do you guys think" or "why don't you guys play this or that".

Then, the flaming begin.

Everyone following the thread usually has a concept of the deck that has been doing better, or posted more results, and then someone arrives with totally diverging ideas. This results in a flame wars, which is probably caused by the simply fact that the guy thought he could/should post his list at that thread.

This is why this thread is actually really good: Noone knows. There's no defined method to say whenever a list is considered the same. I mean, when even Goblins threads discuss the add of Daze/FoW/Brainstorm, while some other threads consider a list subpar due to not using, say, Dark Confidant, I see the problem.

My opinion is that some policy around this should exist. Legacy is offering A LOT of viable options out there, and naming decks is getting more and more complicated, while I still think threads should discuss more closed lists, and a list too diverging from it should head to another thread.

I wonder what are everyone's else opinion...

I've never had much fun naming things. Pets come easily, but songs/children/magic decks are difficult.

For my money, there's hardly a deck in the world that can't be described with a fairly simple dichotomous key, wherein the prefix is "colors" and the suffix is "primary strategy". People like to use the Shards of Alara "shards" when the mana is all friendly. Splashes are indicated by using a backslash and a lowercase letter of the correct color. "Mono-___" indicates a single color of mana.

Sometimes people use weird win conditions that are a primary means to victory and non-staple. In this event you list it after the colors, before the primary strategy. In case the pilot is stupid and runs, say, Battle Of Wits, you just put the numbers of cards in front.

Examples.

URG Aggro
Grixis Combo
Mono-G Control
82-Card WUBRG Vorosh Aggro
300-Card WB/g Battle of Wits Combo
Bant Prison

This is clearly the simplest way to talk about Magic decks.

Other people get all personal about it and give decks goofy pet names which are generally based on other people's pet names for decks and things like really "meta" aware and hipstery. Fruity Pebbles vs Trix, for example. While one would never name a deck "Cracklin' Oat Bran", I consider this a crime against nature and demand someone figure out a reasonable deck which places well at tournaments, is tough to sideboard against and costs less than $400 and can be accurately called "Cracklin' Oat Bran". Cuz it won't be me, as I am terrible deckbuilder who is bad at Magic unless I'm playing Angel Stompy.

My favorite way to describe decks is to highlight the main strategy. Examples from the past are:

UGw Tempo Thresh (Now has become Bant for brevity)
NO Show/Sneak Show (clever name that hits the strategy cleanly)
xxx Stompy (altho this is confused with Senor Stompy/Infect Stompy)

I would categorize decks in the following classes: (in no particular order)

1. Tribal
2. Game-speed (Tempo, full-bore control, sligh)
3. Combo (this is where the name become creative, such as Solidarity)
4. Mid-range

There are also classes of toolboxes that lend a specific deck to behave differently. Examples:
1. ___ & taxes (Karakas, Mangara typically)
2. (Stoneforge) Mystic - powers up mid-range aggro with inevitability
3. X-still (deed, walkers, dreadnought)
4. CBtop
5. Natural Order

Notice how these are not strictly mutally exclusive, and convey the maximum information within the deck. The amount of information isn't even limited to the options outlined.