The Intelligence of Choice (of Deck)

The article is intended for a Magic: the Gathering audience, but it's all about deck types and how they can match your personality. Figured some of you might be interested, as we talk a lot about deck styles in V:TES.

magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=11333

I think the points are more true in vtes than mtg. I preferred midrange decks with durable creatures and removal in mtg, but id play a better deck if i knee the format limited my viable options for auch a deck. In q heartbeat, id switch to any archetype other than a gimmick deck.

In vtes, due to cardpool and how extensive the game is, i build and play based upon things that fit my playstyle.

Most players do. If Bell, Morgan, Hugh, and Ben all give you different advice on the same deck, its because of this. They know what works, and they know what tweaks make it work better in thier hands.

And every player thats been playimg long enough to build a solid deck has an idea of what flavot they want that deck.

Theres alot of perspective and incite to the player of vtes. Nobody plays stealthbleed who thinks they arent getting vps fast. Nobody builds Nadima wall inteding to bleed for 3 with her each turn. But, sb can be patient, and Nadima can deep song bleed with a tier of souls reliably.

Lots to talk about with vtes, the players styles, and deckbuilding nuances.

very true, but the difference is that high-level Magic won't care for type of decks much, while high-level v:tes will totally do

TapeTaChatte wrote:

very true, but the difference is that high-level Magic won't care for type of decks much, while high-level v:tes will totally do

Exceptionally true with vintage fotmats. " which turn one combo will i win with?" Was never my cup of tea in magic, but i understand wantng to use my showpiece cards,,so i understand the format. I used to dig legacy formats, but i sold my last deck of mtg cards, a legqcy deck with all my origional duals i owned, to pay for my wedding. Thats thething though, mtg cards are a liquid asset that can lose alot of value quickly. Or, in the case of the cards i sold, tarmogoyfs i paid $15-$30 each for went up to almost $100 each.
Point im getting at is high level mtg really seems dangerous. Thats alot of $236 dollar bills your shuffling....

I'd like to have more to say about the article and V:TES, but, actually, I just don't relate to the classifications well enough. Working Memory is the only one I see having an affinity for.

The best I could come up with was relating Working Memory to stealth bleed, an archetype I see lending itself to arithmetic and one I'm most comfortable with.

All of the other categories come across to me as tying into playing more complicated cards or strategies. Which is fine, explaining why I'm more about simple, efficient plays than card combinations or verbose cards. But, because of my inclinations towards simplicity, it's hard to put myself in the shoes of those who are attracted to deck archetypes that would appeal to the other categories.

Still, at a very general level, playing decks you are comfortable with is very different than not, regardless as to how powerful in an objective sense the decks may be. This article can provide some insight into what decks someone will find more comfortable and/or why they would find them more comfortable, though I'd imagine there's a less academic way to address such things.

I dislike that the article used non-classic examples of mtg stuff. I dont know or care about most new cards. Pardic dragon and suspend was as new as it tot b4 losing me. But i get trix, stasis, etc.

Stasis makes nobody get to use thier resources, so has easy paralels. New players learn about old decks, former players dont get new refernces. Im sure someone could write vtes/old mtg references into this and make it easier to read, i had to strain to get some points. But the theory is applicable.