[Article] Deck Names

[Dr. Sylvan]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7789

[Methuselahn]

That's a pretty good article Pip.  

I'm not sure if your advice of simple naming necessarily applies here though.  Those of us that are obsessed with Vintage know the differences between the names, so having them makes discussion alot easier sometimes.

If the 'newb' user at SCG wants to pick out a good deck to use, why would they have to know the names anyway?  Couldn't they just browse the 'Decks to Beat' section for a minute or two and find one they like?

I guess it is more of a convienience for the vintage gurus than it is a hinderance for the average player coming into the format.

[rvs]

the quoting was the good part, really.

I can't believe you didn't mention Hulk should be called Tog.

[Matt]

It's really interesting how your article (generalizing between variants) and Flores' (which discusses in great detail the idea of making variants [which he cals 'templating']) appeared on the same day.

[Dr. Sylvan]

It's really interesting how your article (generalizing between variants) and Flores' (which discusses in great detail the idea of making variants [which he cals 'templating']) appeared on the same day.

It's almost as if there were a person out there that knew what all the articles were before they get published, and had the power to rearrange them to create such coordinated themes.

@Methuselahn: Actually, you'll notice that the article makes no mention of "40/40s", despite Kowal and I brainstorming Workshop deck names on AIM while I was writing. That's not some kind of slight to the variant---we just plain couldn't think of it. That's two people who are quite above average even for TMDers in terms of deck awareness, and we couldn't think of all the active names (I still don't know what sets that version apart from Stacker; I think I saw a list months ago and forgot about it). I'd say that signals an inconvenient overload. (And think long-term, too---if we accumulate names this quickly now, who's going to be able to talk coherently about this meta two years from now to someone who wasn't equally familiar?)

Even beyond that, though, presenting archetypes as a set of variants around a consolidated core idea is just intellectual honesty, which happens to make my reports much more sensical. It takes the burden off the observer to connect the dots when I'm listing a hypersimilar deck in one consistent way, rather than under the different names preferred by the people who introduce specific cards as tech. The Decks To Beat is bloated enough as-is.

@MoreFling: I'm all about the Hulk Smash. I'm not opposed to flavorful names when they serve a even little purpose as descriptors, and in this case Hulk describes what's different about Type One Tog compared to T2 or 1.X Tog: green, especially Berserk.

[rvs]

It's just as unclear as 7/10, Keeper, and just about every other name you bitch about.

7/10 is clearly the main strategy of abusing the only 7/10 guy in Magic.

Keeper is clearly about continuously keeping the game under control.

What you doing with Tog (by naming it HulkSmash) is the same thing you are bitching about in your articles: Naming a deck with a pet-name.

[JACO]

While I enjoyed reading the article, I can't agree with most of it.

For example, in your description of The Man Show, by Eric Miller, you opine this:

To me, it is more appropriately labeled "Golden Stacker" - a variant.

The only type of variant this should be considered is a Workshop variant, not a Stax or MUD variant.

Now this is a twenty-eight-card difference, even crazier than the last comparison. Stick with me. The key focus of both decks is quick deployment of four-to-six-mana artifact creatures that will win quickly.

Seeing as how you keep track of all of these decks, can you cite exactly how many decks quickly deploy four-to-six-mana artifact creatures that will win quickly? Let's take a close look:
Modular aka Grab a Stick and Hit (by Menno Rieff)
TnT (or TriniTNT, depending on what you splash)
Stacker1,2,3
BroodstarRunner.dec
TheManShow

Does that mean they should all be grouped together? Hell no. Modular is significantly different than Stacker, which is significantly different than TnT. Tools such as Chains of Mephistopheles, Burning Wish, Swords to Plowshares, and Mystical Tutor are significantly than tools like Tangle Wire, Thirst for Knowledge, and Lightning Greaves, which are significantly different than tools like Survival of the Fittest and Squee, which are significantly different than tools like Cranial Plating, Sword of Fire and Ice. It's called metagaming, and it is what usually create divisions in deckbuilding.

I liken the difference in these decks to the difference between Hulk and GroATog (GAT). Using Quirion Dryads is significantly different than not using them, so you wouldn't just call both of these decks 'Tog,' would you?

Sure there are many deck names out there, and there will be until the cream rises to the top and people figure out what the best variants are, and then only play those decks. But until that time, significant variations in decks will force us to recognize all of the different decks being played, so please don't complain about it just because you don't want to collect the full statistics and break them down as they should be, or because you have a personal aversion to 'pet-names' for decks. Continuing that trend, maybe you can get everyone to dress the same, stop using Magic slang, and just take all of the personality out of the game, and then it can be as boring as ch3ss or bridge.

[Zherbus]

Stacker 2 got its name from being the best 'fat burner', and these newer Workshop aggro decks aren't packing burn. Teletubbies was technically the original name for decks packing Workshops, Juggs, and Su-Chi. Jp is really the man to ask on this though...

[Dr. Sylvan]

For example, in your description of The Man Show, by Eric Miller, you opine this:

To me, it is more appropriately labeled "Golden Stacker" - a variant.

The only type of variant this should be considered is a Workshop variant, not a Stax or MUD variant.

I don't think I called it a Stax/MUD variant; I was connecting it to Stacker, the aggro deck, and adding the label "Golden" because that's been a shortcut word for multicolor almost as often as "rainbow".

Seeing as how you keep track of all of these decks, can you cite exactly how many decks quickly deploy four-to-six-mana artifact creatures that will win quickly? Let's take a close look:
Modular aka Grab a Stick and Hit (by Menno Rieff)
TnT (or TriniTNT, depending on what you splash)
Stacker1,2,3
BroodstarRunner.dec
TheManShow

Does that mean they should all be grouped together? Hell no. Modular is significantly different than Stacker, which is significantly different than TnT. Tools such as Chains of Mephistopheles, Burning Wish, Swords to Plowshares, and Mystical Tutor are significantly than tools like Tangle Wire, Thirst for Knowledge, and Lightning Greaves, which are significantly different than tools like Survival of the Fittest and Squee, which are significantly different than tools like Cranial Plating, Sword of Fire and Ice. It's called metagaming, and it is what usually create divisions in deckbuilding.

First, I did put TnT separately; it's got a whole engine that's central to the deck to distinguish it. My initial statement is not the only reason to group those decks together, it was a simplification of the core of those decks.

Their tools are different, but my point is that they're not the core of the deck, and they're not the engine making it work. One Stacker version tries to gain cards with Thirst, another tries to gain the same advantage in reverse with Chains. I see Crucible as something that was an option in Stacker anyway; it just wasn't legal at the time of the build I was using as an example. It's a card choice just like the last several creature slots are open to a lot of metagaming.

I sort of see it as making changes one by one to a deck, and it's a new archetype if one of those tweaks actually makes you redesign the deck. Adding Chains over Thirst doesn't redesign Stacker the same way it made Eastman completely refocus 4CC when he tried it there---Eric just swapped Draw7s for tutors, a minor tweak. Adding Crucible over Tangle Wire is almost as trivial as when Tangle Wire moved out of Trinistax. Adding Survival does make you completely change the deck. Adding Dryad is a big change to Hulk, because you have to refocus your draw spell selection to pump the Dryad (the removal of Intuition-AK from GAT is a telling sign of why they are distinct). That's what I'm trying to illustrate here; the difference between switching engines and making tweaks to utility slots.

Try this tought experiment: I've heard Chains-TnT suggested recently. What if someone put both Chains and Crucible into a Survival/Jugg/Su-Chi skeleton, and then called it "The Daily Show", let's say? Would that be a new archetype, or would it be recognizable changes to an existing one? I think we could all get by calling it Chains-TnT, just as we've agreed on TriniTnT in the past.

Some of my favorite name evolutions are Stax to Trinistax and MUD vs Welder-MUD, because they communicate what's new very efficiently. If TMS had been called Chains-Stacker or Golden/Rainbow Stacker, I would have been completely satisfied. I'm fine with decks being reported with a specific pet name attached to them, by all means. I just want their archetypes to be properly categorized so people refer to them in the most organized way, presenting the most accurate picture.

[jpmeyer]

Stacker 2 got its name from being the best 'fat burner', and these newer Workshop aggro decks aren't packing burn. Teletubbies was technically the original name for decks packing Workshops, Juggs, and Su-Chi. Jp is really the man to ask on this though...

I apologize for naming my creation "Stacker 2."  It was a youthful indesrection that will never happen again.  I thought I was clever for seeing "world's strongest fat burner" and "chicks go wack for the stack" (kirdape3 will testify to the Stacker groupie) and how those were relevant.

The problem now is that I'm having trouble thinking of a better name, since "Workshop Aggro" seems a liiiiiiiiitle bit too broad.

[theorigamist]

It's called metagaming, and it is what usually create divisions in deckbuilding.

Are you saying that metagamed versions of decks become new decks?  When I was first getting into Type 1 I looked at Sui (it was good then, and cheap, please don't hate me), and I saw something about the different creature configurations to use depending on your metagame.  Are those all different decks because they are metagamed?  Should we have had Suicide Black, Flesh Reaver Black, Shade Sui, blah blah blah?  I think the article basically showed what happened when metagaming made deck designs diverge.  They kept the same core, the same engine, and the same game plan but used slightly different cards.  If it looks like TnT, acts like TnT, plays like TnT, etc.

Nice article.  I liked it a lot.

[wuaffiliate]

T2 players have it easy when naming decks, they have a very limited cardpool so they generally have a handfull of decks.

T1 as we all know is much different, we have dozens of archtypes. There is no way to keep the names for decks in T1 simple because of our vast cardpool.

The only way to keep some sort of sanity in deck naming is just to know every deck, how it works, and why it was named as it was. It isn't too difficult, just have a write up on each "decks to beat" articles(on SCG), to explain where the names come from. Small effort by existing players, for a helpfull outcome for newer players.

[Eastman]

IsoControl (or chronic) played much different then K.eeper, particularly at the time. They were two very different decks.

[Smmenen]

T1 players use the worst names for Decks.

A bit of history:

When GroAtog first hit, there was a real terminology fight.  The Germans wanted to call it Growing Tog.  The peeps on the Mana Drain wanted to call it something else entirely - including Oscar becuase they hated that name.  

It was too obvious and useful for them.  They liked names like PsychaGrow and stupid shit like that.

I nipped that shit in the bud.  GroAtog is about as clear as you can get.  You just need to know the Gro reference.  

Stax: ducktape didn't make sense as a name at all.  The real thing that David Wee didn't understand, and was reflected in his lists, was that he didn't have 4 Sphere of Resistence maindeck.  In fact, he had all 4 in the SB.  It was the single most important card in the deck.  The reason stax was good at that time was becuase Sphere of Resistence single handedly wrecked GAT.  Like if you think Trinisphere is good agaisnt Combo, Sphere was like 3Sphere and Chalice in one, and much worse.  

Draw7 - briefly I flirted with the name twister, but chose this name becuase it made alot more sense.

Sometimes however, you can't control names.  Shouting louder and longer than everyone else gets you a good way there, but with Long, I really thought the appropriate name should have been Burning Academy.  That name was too long and the deck was already known as multiple things, including Burning Desire.  

Therefore, Long.dec was the simplest and most appropriate appellation, even if Kryzwicki and myself had much more to do with the deck.  

I agree Hulk should simply be Psychatog.  Or just "Tog."  I refer to it as Tog.

Fish is problematic.  I don't know what we do.  

I've been referring to 7/10 decks as Aggro-Prison decks.  We'll see how that works.

[rozetta]

Of course, everything can be grossly simplified to Type 2 standards.

TnT -> (G/R | G/R/B) Workshop Aggro (-Prison)
7/10, BSR -> (U/R | U/R/B) Workshop Aggro (-Prison)
WelderMUD -> Mono Red Workshop Prison
Stax (and co.) -> (5c | 4c | U/R/B | U/R) Workshop Prison
Workshop Slavery -> (U/R | U/R/B) Workshop Slaver
DrainSlaver -> (U/R | U/R/B) Counter Slaver
Modular -> Mono Brown Modular Aggro (-Prison)
Affinity -> U/R/B Affinity Aggro
4cControl -> 4cControl
Fish -> (U/R | U/R/G | whatever) Aggro Control (yeah, this is difficult)
Landstill -> U/R Standstill Control
Madness -> (U/G | U/G/R) Madness
Hulksmash -> (U/B/G | 4c) Psychatog
GAT -> U/B/G Dryad-Tog
Belcher, Draw7, DeathLong, TPS -> insert your choice of stupid american breakfast cereal name here

This example list seems to follow Type 2 naming schemes, but the names are stupid in a lot of cases. I still think it would be boring to have more descriptive names, especially since colour schemes in decks don't necessarily describe them due to differences in engines, etc. However, I think if we get in a habit of accepting more logical names, especially ones which mean something regardless of where you live (Slapjack?) I think we're on the right track.

[Azhrei]

Type One is as much about the characters who play it as the game itself.

Calling things names that are painfully obvious and dull detract from that flavor.

Which is more interesting: "7/10 Split versus The Man Show" or "Workshop Titan versus Workshop Aggro".

Stop being so goddam boring. Read a little bit about sign and signified before anyone delves too deeply into this debate, because the bottom line is that "OSE" is a lot easier to convey an idea than "3 color control with Factories and a heavy LD element." The fanciful names are MORE descriptive than anything else because they evoke a fully formed idea and not a vague sense of a list.

[Smmenen]

When T1 is trying to attract new players, which it is, those names are a hindrence, creative or not.

It is important that a name tell as much about a deck as possible for the uninformed.

[jpmeyer]

I tell this story all the time but I think it bears repeating.

During around like February or so last year, a few people from #tmd were in #mtgwacky talking about Tog in Type 1, as this was right after I got 2nd in the first TMD NE champs.  From hearing the references to Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will and whatnot, Zvi said "I think that Psychatog would be good in Type 1."  Then I had to explain to him that that's what they were talking about.  They just were calling it "Hulk Smash" rather than "Tog."

[Azhrei]

So if you're talking to the ignorant, use one set of terms-- if not, speak in a more effective way.  

For example: I might tell a fencer to "Void the attack and riposte in seconda while doing a replacement on the mezzo." That makes perfect sense if you know what those terms mean, but if I had to write them out every goddam time it would take 300 words just to go through something very basic.  With someone new, I WILL go through what eact of those terms mean, but they're expected to learn them.

What you guys want is "Walls cannot attack" for deck names.

Workshop ABCXYZ is fine to explain something the first time, but Stax tells me a whole list, strategy, theory, and weaknesses because I've done my homework, and I can express a complicated idea (Long) with one word, rather than many (LED Burning Wish Tendrils of Despair Combo).

Granted, "Tog" can do the same, but screw that because Hulk sounds much better. Really... oh no, Zvi didn't know what we meant by Hulk.

Zvi: "What's Hulk?"

Anyone: "T1 Tog with Berserk"

Zvi: "As I play Magic and speak English, I now comprehend fully."

If someone can't take the time to learn what TnT is and needs "Workshop Survival" to make it clear... well, fuck 'em. Like we don't have enough mental midgets already.

[Kowal]

Darren, if you weren't before, you are now, my hero.

[Methuselahn]

Yes, Azhrei has articulated the point perfectly.  

Also, does Type 1 really need to try and attract players like it was doing 2-3 years ago??  No.  The seeds of Vintage have been planted and the format is growing just fine on it's own.  If I had to speculate, I would say Type 1 is in no danger of dying out here.  Just look at the prize support now, the prize support 3 years ago, the price of power, and the widespread use of proxies.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Just to be clear, my position has little to do with "flavor" names, which is why I've stuck with Hulk Smash rather than pushing "BUG Tog". TnT, Stax, and names like that are peachy-keen. My article is strictly about diffusion of names to the point where it actually is confusing and obfuscates perceptions about the metagame. We should always make the format approachable to new players, but there's such a huge burden of knowledge just in the B&R list and knowing what old cards do that deck naming doesn't need to be as bland as other formats.

[rozetta]

By the way, you did realise that my earlier post with the formulated deck names based on Type 2 was a piss-take, right?

A problem with names is that if they're used long enough, they stick. That's why people don't use names like 4cControl or Germbus in spoken conversation. Even some fairly new names (from the last year or two) have stuck, like Hulk. I think this is fine. Also, some names are already pretty descriptive, like Slavery, Stax, Groatog and Landstill.

The problem we're having is that, like Dr. Sylvan pointed out, we have many slight variations on the same base which have lead to a plethora of new (and sometimes non-obvious) deck names and this is now contributing to confusion. This is especially true with all the variations on the workshop theme. If you have a month off these boards, you're probably not going to recognise all the new ones. Another problem is that often people have multiple names for the same deck (Oshawa Stompy, Big O, etc.)

I think the bottom line is:
- if it's a variant to an existing deck, use the old deck name or a descriptive name
- if it's a new deck and it's possible to give it an easy-to-use descriptive name, do so
- if not (like in the example of long), come up with something catchy that people will understand and remember

[Toad]

I've just read The M.E.T.H.O.D's thread about Artifact Aggro decks. I love when he mentions BFD, TMS and 40s/40s, especially since I don't even know what he is referring to.  

[wuaffiliate]

BFD is the deck the shop deck that ran 7/10, wastes, 3spheres main, no fow, no brainstorm, before 7/10 existed.

TMS = The Man Show, you know, it made finals at some big tourney run by some random website...

no idea wtf 40s/40s is.

[Vegeta2711]

40/40's is that weird stacker variant with MD SOFI and thirst or something.

[Zherbus]

Forty 40's is like 7/10, Stax, and Tubbies all making a baby together.

[wuaffiliate]

Oh i see, cute.