New Hub: RCA

TappedOut forum

Posted on June 24, 2019, 2:05 a.m. by TypicalTimmy

So the tutorless hub idea got me thinking of other potential hubs that are currently not formed. I think I found one.

  • RCA

What is RCA? Well, like many hubs and deck archetypes, "RCA" is derived from the cards that inspired it; Or more specifically, the card's SUBTYPES that inspired it.

RCA stands for: Rats / Clerics / Advisors

I think we can all see where this is going. Each of these decks brings a unique twist to the deck building method; You pack your deck with as many of the same-named card as possible for maximum shock to the boardstate, whether it is a literal army of scaling rats, a cult of zealots willing to die for their lords, or an army of senators bickering over how best to play the game.

There are variances in these decks as well. While most Rats decks are mono-black, some run green for Genesis Wave to cheat a bunch out all at once. Most decks are going to be running Thrumming Stone , and are able to use the Cascade mechanic to cheat out even more for free. I'm sure other clever users will find more ways to cheat them out, too.

Clerics tend to favor either mono-black or Orzhov for recursion aspects and are a strong cEDH deck.

As for Advisors, I currently have an Oathbreaker deck that has been kicking tons of butts lately as a serious mono-blue mill engine in 1v1, and in Pods it can actually be used to mill MYSELF out so that I win by losing! Easier to mill out my 58 cards then it is to mill three other opponents out, haha.

It's literally just a matter of time before Wizards gives us cards of similar mechanical design in other colors, and we actually already have four; Rat Colony , who for a short time was sparking up as a Standard deck though it was unable to find a footing anywhere competitively.

So what does Tappedout think? Does RCA deserve a chance or should we wait to see if other cards are printed? :)

PepsiAddicted says... #2

tutorless makes sense, in a way..for some ppl i guess. but having hubs for specific creature type combinations would end in chaos imo. on the other hand... why not JePi, that jellyfish and pirate ships. id like that

June 24, 2019 2:27 a.m.

TypicalTimmy says... #3

This isn't just meant for random cards like Jellyfish and Pirate Ships, this is meant for cards that mechanically allow for any number of them in the deck. It's an entirely different play style and the deck is quite literally built around the one thing they do, be it growing to enormous proportions, tutoring out demons, or milling 12+ cards per turn.

Again, this has nothing to do with a deck being "rat tribal" or "advisor tribal" and everything to do about the fact you can run 24x of the same card to hone in on that one specific aspect.

While it may be a bit premature since we only have four cards that allow for any number of them in the deck and two of them are functionally identical ( Relentless Rats and Rat Colony ), the theme definitely is there and Wizards is clearly looking toward new design space.

Perhaps we will see cards of the same general "archetype" in different colors soon, perhaps not. Regardless, these decks do exist and can be made better. I feel it is worth a discussion at the very least.

June 24, 2019 3:01 a.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #4

RCA is too confusing. Magic's history of deck archetype names is very very arbitrary and needs more consistency.

If this were to be implemented at all, I suggest something that is more descriptive of the mechanic: "Card-Quantity Matters" or "No Card-Count Limit" are two suggestions.

However I'm iffy on this regardless as these are all just "the relentless rats deck" or "the rat colony deck" or "the shadowborn apostle deck" etc. That's sort of what they are referred to as, and a singular hub for these isn't really going to be that successful.

June 24, 2019 3:08 a.m. Edited.

sergiodelrio says... #5

May I suggest pushing the term "basic"... Maybe it gets so popular that WOTC will finally be willing to implement it as an actual thing (as in basic supertype translating directly to this mechanic)

June 24, 2019 9:03 a.m.

legendofa says... #6

I know that these are developing archetypes, but aside from the "basic creatures" theme, there's not much overlap, and the signature cards in question are largely not going to be in the same deck. It's a good suggestion, and one worth revisiting in the future. Right now, though, it just feels to me a little bit too un-cohesive.

June 26, 2019 10:36 a.m.

Please login to comment