Deck thread creation guide

[Koby]

In an effort to maintain a system of organization within the Vintage deck discussion forum, please use the following tags when starting new deck threads. These are loosely based upon the accepted pillar of the Vintage metagame and The Mana Drain.

• For Blue-based decks, use [Blue]
• For Workshop-based decks, use [Shop]
• For Bazaar-based decks, use [Bazaar]
• For Ritual-based decks, use [Storm]
• For Aggro decks, use [Aggro]
• For all others, use [Other]

As E_F points below, this might cause some contention and work against active participation in discussing ideas.

Let's instead make sure that threads contain good resources about the deck, including links to any relevant article or past deck performance (such as TCdeck or Morphling.de archives). If there are any unusual card choices, please discuss them.

[socialite]

There's been entire threads devoted to the break down of archetypes in Vintage. Everyone has a different view of how things break down. This seems superfluous and confusing. Someone already fucked it up as well, lol. We don't break down the Legacy section like this, why change it here.

[Koby]

How do you suggest we organize the decks in this forum without creating sub-fora to handle each of the "pillars"?

[socialite]

How do you suggest we organize the decks in this forum without creating sub-fora to handle each of the "pillars"?

In all honesty I don't not believe we have to and I feel very strongly that doing so stifles discussion. IIRC TMD had a similar system to this where they would tag threads; it ended up being a subjective cluster fuck.

TMD eventually moved to the sub forum split for each generally accepted archetype (this also became a point of contention later on down the line). That split killed a lot of cross discussion on the forums and made it much more difficult for new players to access the general knowledge pool. Prominent players ended up sticking to their favored archetype section and intelligent discussion suffered. Vintage is very cyclic in nature. The meta rotates decks fall out of favor and what is old becomes new again. There's much to be learned about Vintage from reading material outside of what you as a player would normally play.

It isn't that difficult to tell what a particular list is trying to accomplish when you look at the specific cards that make up the core of deck. I just do not see the need for an arbitrary breakdown especially when it only serves to cause confusion and harm discussion.

The most important part is separating budget decks and those that are new and developmental lists from established archetypes and lists (historically The Source has done this very well and it really pays off).

My 2c.

[Koby]

Fair enough. My goal for these forum would be to foster discussion that focus on decks and strategy rather than archetypes. Especially in the recent 2 years for Vintage where seemingly anything can be made playable and a lot of exploration has taken place.

[socialite]

Fair enough. My goal for these forum would be to foster discussion that focus on decks and strategy rather than archetypes. Especially in the recent 2 years for Vintage where seemingly anything can be made playable and a lot of exploration has taken place.

Exactly. :)

[RowanJack]

How do you suggest we organize the decks in this forum without creating sub-fora to handle each of the "pillars"?

We could organize the decks using tags or categories within the main forum to avoid creating separate sub-fora for each pillar.