Talk:Magic: The Gathering deck types

message: I find it a little odd that no mention at all of the second triple is made in the article. Granted, Alt-Win is always Combo, and Aggro is always Damage, but there are damage-dealing combos, and Mill is a valid win-condition for Control decks (just have some Howling Mines and Fonts of Mythos on the field: the opponent gets the increased draw first, so they run out of cards to draw first). Basically, win condition is as important to deck design and play decisions as deck style is, possibly more so.
Proginoskes (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a legitimate article (written by a pro, WotC official, recognized name) that suggests that magic is typically broken down into these three categories?  I also have to wonder how effective it is to break down into these categories, given that few decks win by milling and few decks use alt-win conditions.  Crimson30 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggro/Combo/Control vs. Damage/Mill/Alt-Win 

message: Can we get a reputable citation for this being an alternative name for the aggro deck?  As far as I can determine this is just a colloquial term for the subset of creature-based aggro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about its usage in MtG, but as I recall Beatdown was the archetype name used for Yu-Gi-Oh decks which relied on monsters as their win condition. --BBM (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beatdown" 

message: All the exemple decks are about vintage cards. I guess vintage players don't really need to learn about the different types of deck.
It could be interesting to remake the article with today's gameplay. 
If someone new to magic comes here to seek inspiration for his deck I think he will loose his time because most of the cards quoted here cannot be find easily (and seriously, some cards are more than 15 years old...). And the topic of this article shouldn't be what was played 15 years ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.105.77 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Comment" 

message: I am relatively new to Magic , and I notice that Mill deck is missing. I believe that is a correct theme. I would add but I am not real knowledgeable yet. It seems like there are only 2 real styles listed with combos to varying degrees.
:Hi, a Mill deck is a form of Control deck as it disrupts the opponents strategy (unless they're using a Zombie swarm startegy) as well as bringing you closer to victory. I am going to be updating this page to get rid of the ugly out-of-date tag and will consider adding Mill in under Contol. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 10:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mill Deck 

message: This page is created solely based on competitive MtG play. There are more Magic players that play casually than competitive players and they have several other deck types. Shouldn't these be mentioned here also.
Linkato1 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casual Decks 

message: The page has no explanation for the "ramp" strategy.
Page says only: "Ramp is another main strategy, however isn't as prominent as the other three."
That may be, and maybe it's an inferior strategy, I don't know - but it is referenced several times, and that demands at least a short explanation.
Exampe: "Midrange" is described as ramp-aggro-hybrid - that's not helpful if you don't know what ramp is.
213.209.99.170 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ramp" explanation missing 

message: Statements like "it is not as prominent as the other three" etc. need to be updated, and it would probably be helpful to provide a brief explanation of how the nature of the mana effects in Eldrazi decks are different from those of traditional ramp decks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.135.21 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramp needs to be updated now that Eldrazi Ramp is one of the strongest deck types in both Standard and Modern. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering deck types. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026073957/http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36351.0 to http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36351.0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a sticky one. There's folks that say that "Tempo" doesn't mean anything and there's folks that say Aggro-Control and Tempo are the same (as this page currently does). But actually if you look at authoritative figures there seems to be if not consensus then at least strong pointers that Aggro-Control and Tempo are not the same.
Citations:
Patrick Chapin in Next Level Deckbuilding page 194
"Aggro-Control and Fish are in fact often mistaken for one another — and in the context of a particular format, the decks will often share many individual cards. In addition, especially when comparing Fish or Aggro-Control to traditional control decks, they both tend to play the beatdown, run out a threat (whether it is a Bitterblossom or a Master of the Pearl Trident), and then use their permission to hold a lead they already have.
The distinction between them is that Fish / Suicide Black plays out its threats and then plays out its Time Walks, whereas Aggro-Control generally plays out its Time Walks before getting in with its threats."
Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa in https://strategy.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/home/pvs-playhouse-aggro-control/:
"I believe the components are way less important than what they are used for. You see, any literate person can look at this decklist and see that it has counterspells and burn—that is not hard. What you probably do not know just by looking is that those elements—even the disruptive ones—are all used towards aggression, every time."
I suggest instead of:
"Aggro-control is a hybrid archetype that contains both aggressive creatures and control elements. These decks attempt to deploy quick threats while protecting them with light permission and disruption long enough to win. These are frequently referred to as "tempo" strategies, as they are built with a sense of timing. Tempo players look to control the game early and take advantage of a strong board state. Where purely control decks look to out class players with more quality in the later stages of the game, tempo looks to keep opponents off balance from the very start."
we go with:
"Aggro-Control is a deck that is situated between Aggro and Control. It contains elements of both, and uses them to change between aggression and control, depending on the matchup and the game state." (This is PV's definition from the previously linked article.
This would also mean removing (at least) Fish from the example decks.
What do you think? Bakert (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggro-Control Definition 

message: Barely-sourced article which could fit into a paragraph or two here. 162 etc. (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Control deck (Magic: The Gathering)]]