Primer guideline discussion thread
TappedOut forum
Posted on June 18, 2014, 11:42 a.m. by Epochalyptik
Last Update: 24 June, 01:00 EST
Those of you who have been following recent discussions in this forum may be aware that TappedOut may soon host primers.
This thread will contain the official discussion on what should and should not be included in these primers, and will serve as the basis for a template if we decide on a way to host said primers.
To discuss where these primers will be located, how they will be handled, and any other non-content concerns, please post in this thread.
We should begin by developing a uniform structure for our primers. That way, we can ensure that they do the job they're supposed to do.
Basic requirements
Primers should be
- specific to the archetype or strategy, not a decklist. The official primers will not be based around a single user's decklist, although users are welcome to write unofficial primers in the description fields of their own decks.
- detailed enough to convey exactly what the main theories, decisions, and goals are.
- flexible enough to provide examples of essential or significant cards, alternatives, or ideas without committing to specific card counts. Again, these are not decklist-specific primers.
Basic structure
I'm thinking the basic structure will look something like this:
- Introduction
- Name of the deck/archetype
- Format
- Key features
- General goals
- Strengths
- Weaknesses
- May include history
- Construction
- Philosophy
- Key characteristics or qualities
- Essential cards (examples)
- Supporting cards (examples)
- Optional cards (examples)
- Sideboarding (examples)
- Gameplay
- Philosophy
- Function or use of certain cards, combos, etc.
- Game 1
- Sideboarding
Numbers indicate required section names. Bullet points indicate suggested information.
Basic organization
- The trinity: Aggro, Combo, and Control are the three most fundamental archetypes. Almost all other archetypes can be categorized into one of these three groups. Oddball archetypes needn't be forced into one of these categories, though.
- Suggested implementation: Static pages (I can write and publish these)
- Archetype: Archetypes are collections of similar decks that are unified by their basic principles. Objects in this category would be more specific than trinity archetypes, but still general enough to apply to many decks/shells. Examples: Attrition, Storm, Weenies, Tokens, Dredge, Infect
- Suggested implementation: Static pages
- Deck types: Deck types are the intermediary between larger archetypes and individual decks. They account for variations in the archetypes. Examples: Manaless Dredge, Cruel Control, Pump Infect
- Suggested implementation: Folders (to be maintained on an official site account)
- Shells: Shells are the actual decklists themselves, but stripped down to serve as fundamental guides rather than examples of fully-built decks.
- Suggested implementation: Decklists (to be maintained either on an official site account or by individual users)
For ease of organization, please use the terms trinity, archetype, deck type, and shell as defined above. They will help us organize the necessary elements of this project and avoid confusion.
As you can see, I want these primers held to a high standard. These are going to be great tools for the community, and they may also draw in new users. We'll develop a template to make this easier for people, but I want uniformity and quality across the board.
Important: The above information will be updated as this thread develops. Check this post for the most current, consolidated snapshot of the discussion.
Servo_Token says... #3
Agreed with Jake, however in most primers I have seen that include history, that is usually located somewhere around the General goals, and before the strengths / weaknesses. Just a small note.
June 18, 2014 12:20 p.m.
ChiefWannaHacka says... #6
Would there be a section for match up specfic info? Or would that be under sideboarding?
June 18, 2014 12:51 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
The author could include a summary of how to sideboard and what some commonplace sideboard options are, but remember that official primers will not be decklist specific. We should be writing a primer for the deck/archetype shell, and the information will therefore be general enough to remain applicable to many variations of the deck.
As a result, matchup information would have to be based on other primers/shells rather than specific decklists. We could offer suggested sideboard information, but no absolutes.
June 18, 2014 12:54 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #8
Think we should include budget alternatives for the archetype as well? Just as an example, for a jund primer, making note of Strangleroot Geist as a budget Tarmogoyf ? Or would a budgeted section on its own work out? Of course not every archetype has a budget option, but many do, and I know a lot of people would like that. It also challenges the author a bit to extend their thinking on the archetype into the budgeted realm, which is something that not a ton of people are used to.
Just an idea, could be fun / useful.
June 18, 2014 1:05 p.m.
In relation to the matchup section I feel like that would be mentioned in the sideboard card section. For instance:
Ruric Thar, the Unbowed is recommended for dealing with control. This will really put a damper on their plans and make them think twice about casting spells and even if they happen to have removal right away, they still take 6 damage.
Golgari Charm is useful in a number of ways. It can be a board wipe with its -1/-1 for against weenie decks and the enchantment removal is always great to have for those Detention Sphere , Banishing Light , Underworld Connections , Assemble the Legion and lots more. Its regenerate ability can be used to bring back a beater or two that died this turn or to completely blow out a Supreme Verdict .
As you can see, it would tell in the sideboard cards' discussion when to use them.
June 18, 2014 1:23 p.m.
Another thing that I've seen in primers before that I liked was a rating system. Basically showing, these cards are highly recommended, these are staples, these are not recommended, these are used mostly in sideboards, etc.
June 18, 2014 1:24 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
@ThatBlueMage: We might include budget suggestions in the "Alternatives" subsection, but there's a vague line between providing an assessment and analysis of the deck and giving people a prefab decklist. It's possible to go beyond the level of detail that's actually most useful in the primer. For example, is it really appropriate to mention a budget alternative to each high-end staple? At what point do we leave that determination to the reader rather than the author?
@phaze08: That's basically what I'm thinking for 2.6 and 3.4 (see, numbering is awesome). But again, I don't want the official primers to be "Oh hey, look at this one decklist. This is how I play it." If there are staple sideboard cards, that's fine. However, I don't want there to be a full 15-card prefab sideboard in the primer. Keep it theory-based. Suggestions are preferable unless there is an absolute reason to include something.
As for the rating system, that's similar to 2.3 through 2.6. However, primers should not be opinion based. I don't want our authors saying "I think this card is cool and it works here." Rather, they should be saying "This card or mechanic functions in these roles within the deck." Also, a "not recommended" section would be too expansive to manage. It's better to stick with the actual recommendations because they're part of a more finite set.
June 18, 2014 1:46 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #13
Is this gona be in a decklist under a new primer hub, as was mentioned before, stickied in the forums, or articles? Cause I'd be down for making an EDH reanimator primer, while I've only been playing EDH for about a year I've played pretty much every reanimator general, strategy, and colors i could think of
June 18, 2014 1:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #14
@HorrorAvengers: This thread is for discussing the actual requirements for the primers themselves. Discussion on where primers should be located should take place in this thread.
However, to answer your question, we're considering a few different locations. We have not yet committed to an idea (officially). I doubt they would be counted amongst the articles, and I want to stay away from decklist-based or decklist-specific primers.
June 18, 2014 1:51 p.m.
@Epochalyptik I agree with you, the numbering is better. I've read a few before, but alot of the more popular archetypes you see running around don't have a primer so for someone who might want to try and play with that archetype, they just have to basically look at a bunch of decklists and fabricate something similar to what others are using. Especially if you don't play standard alot or aren't familiar with those colors. I think this is a great thing for TappedOut.
Also, like you said, it would not be a decklist, more of 'these are the cards in the format that are playable in these colors, that might be useful. And here is why they don't really mesh with the deck, here are the ones that might do well in this archetype. These are great for sideboard. Etc.' And of course, you would want to list enough that it still left the choice up to the reader to create their own decks with their new-found knowledge.
June 18, 2014 1:54 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #16
As for the structure, Possibly a section devoted to different builds under the construction section, I suppose the optional cards could encompass that, but as different builds have different mindsets but are still similar enough for, in my opinion, to be in the same primer, I think they warrent their own subsection. The first example that comes to mind is dredge in legacy, both manaless and, well, with mana. Or modern dredge, referring to both dredgevine and zombiedredge, ect.
June 18, 2014 1:58 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
As far as content goes, I'm also hesitant to include primers for Standard decks. Standard is such a fickle format; major changes can occur with any new release. Therefore, primers would only be relevant for a short while. We'd get a few that last several releases, and maybe some that last a full rotation, but they'd be obsolete eventually. That's just extra work writing, editing, and curating time-sensitive content.
As a tech writer, I get a little sad thinking about that. Standard primers could be useful, but the effort we'd need to invest in such an ephemeral resource is pretty high in comparison to what we'd end up getting in return.
@HorrorAvengers: Good point. Perhaps we'd have introductory articles for archetypes, then actual primers for specific shells within those archetypes. That way, primers are focused on only one shell and its microvariations rather than several shells that are actually very different. Thoughts?
June 18, 2014 2:03 p.m.
@HorrorAvengers raises a good point.....would two different types of the same archetype be in one primer or two?
Would JundControl go in the same as Jund Monsters?
Would Grixis Constellation go in the same as Grixis Control?
June 18, 2014 2:03 p.m.
@Epochalyptik The extensive editing and such would fall on the shoulders of the original author, though, correct? SO if there were to agree to pilot that primer, then they would also be expected to keep it up to date, correct? Basically update every new set to show what new cards could be useful, what couldn't. And to basically reformat everytime there is rotation. An update every 3 months or so when there's a new set isn't unreasonable expectations, I dont think.
Personally, I enjoy standard, not only because its competitive, but to me building the deck and making it work the way I want is half the fun and in standard, you always have to rebuild your decks with a new card pool...In modern you might say 'Oh, look at that new set....there's a few cards I'd like for my deck' and you change a couple things. But in standard, we're forced to restructure our entire decks and I like that.....maybe I'm weird.
June 18, 2014 2:07 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #20
@phaze08: That discussion is probably best kept in the other thread, but the editing hierarchy would likely be
- Epochalyptik
- Archetype editors (possibly)
- Primer authors
Archetype editors would be responsible for knowing and maintaining the material pertinent to their specific archetypes. If we decide not to use an intermediate editor class, then I'd be the one overseeing all of the content from an administrative/advisory/editorial perspective. Writing would, for the most part, be delegated to individual authors.
To your other point: it's not a matter of enjoying Standard. It's a matter of determining whether it's practical to use this kind of content structure for such an ephemeral kind of content.
Another problem is that Standard is a "here-and-now" format. Typically, when a Standard-exclusive shell (meaning a shell that isn't used in other formats) becomes illegal in Standard, it fades from community interest. Few people go back and look at older Standard decks; they're more concerned with what happens in Modern or Legacy or new Standard. That means we'd have dead primers piling up. While that in itself is not a huge concern, it means we're sitting on a ton of dated material that isn't really worth maintaining, and has been updated such that it most likely reflects only the last iteration pre-rotation. How useful is that information?
June 18, 2014 2:15 p.m.
I think Jund would be two different primers, but some others would include multiple.
Examples.
In U/W/R control for modern, It should include the flash variant, which is the same deck but running Restoration Angel and possibly Geist of Saint Traft and Thundermaw Hellkite mainboard. They just add a touch of aggro and/or evasion to the control aspect. The additions really just maximize the control aspect. (more value from clique and snap with resto). Better finishers in geist and thundermaw.
Jund Control and Monsters are doing two different things with their respective decks. While using a lot of the same cards (read best cards for the colors). One is playing a slower game and manipulate the opponent's hand (control) and Monsters is trying to be explosive and clear the way for their creatures.
Grixis Constellation I'm unfamiliar with, so I can't compare with the other.
I would think the complexity of the primer, should define if we have an intro + sub articles. I can see it for dredge in legacy, I can't see it for it american control vs american flash in modern, I see the same primer. I can't see the tie with jund monsters vs jund control in standard. I see two separate primers.
Just because they use the same cards, doesn't always qualify them to be the same deck. Cause twin is u/w/r control with the twin combo and a bit more deck manipulation (serum visions), I could not see them being tied together in any form.
Ultimately the primers should be about the goals of the deck archetype and how it accomplishes them.
just my .2.
June 18, 2014 2:18 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #22
I think focusing the primers on concepts rather than colors would work better. For example if I did the EDH reanimator one I'd definitely put junk and esper reanimator under the same primer, where as junk reanimator and ghave combo would be under a different primer. So using Phase's example, Jund control and monsters would be seperate, but jund and rakdos control would be similar, maybe even both encompassed in black control, although that sounds a bit iffy, and jund monsters and gruul or rug monsters would be under the same primer.
June 18, 2014 2:26 p.m.
@Epochalyptik I see your point, but if the original author was to edit their original primer each time, it would just change from "Grixis Control" to "Grixis Constellation-Updated for JOU" or "Grixis Control in JOU."
I see how things could pile up but as I said, if authors were to edit their posts instead of creating entirely new posts each season then it wouldn't be as bad. Also, if additional mods were appointed to patrol those sections and clean up outdated posts (Especially in standard) then things would not get as messy.
I do enjoy standard and as you said, its not a question of enjoying standard or not, but people who regularly play standard are going to be required to rebuild and update their decks and posts, because obviously they can't use last season's deck in tournaments. So again, I don't think things would be as cluttered as you say. Another suggestion to help with this would be to allow the writer to delete their own primer so that if the deck archetype becomes obsolete then they can get rid of it and I'm sure from time to time mods may have to remind them to do so but I think this would also help with things being messy and having old, outdated standard posts.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I for one would like there to be standard primers and I think alot of the crowd on this site would feel the same way. Other MTG sites do it, and if we do not allow standard primers, then people will continue to use other sites and talk bad about TappedOut for not having primers for standard players.
June 18, 2014 2:27 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #24
Also, to relate to standerd primers. Perhaps every set release, the writers of the primers have to check something saying "Yes this primer is still relevent." That way a conscious, if negligible, effort has to be put in to keep the primer in use, and if it's out of date I doubt the author will be checking back on it, so if that checkbox is left alone for say, 2 weeks, the primer is automatically deleted
June 18, 2014 2:29 p.m.
What HorrorAvengers mentioned is a pretty great idea I think, but maybe broaden the window a bit more than 2 weeks, as the player likely wouldn't update every two weeks anyway once the primer was complete until new archetypes emerged, giving new matchup guidelines or sideboard options, at least.
June 18, 2014 2:33 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #26
That also ensures that multi-format standard decks, like junk midrange, can endure for years so long as someone's updating it. And I was toying around with the window time, idk, a month seems like a bit long but maybe that's just me
June 18, 2014 2:37 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
I posted in the other thread about the possibility of rethinking the entire system and going back to the earlier idea of a hub-based primer tag (kind of like the way MTGS does things). This would, of course, mean that primers would have to be decklist-specific.
I'm thinking about adding an admin-controlled account for primers, making a buch of deck shells (so instead of decklists we have actual shells with room for variation), and posting the primers as descriptions on those decks. That would be comparatively easy, and it would allow us to use the existing systems.
June 18, 2014 2:41 p.m.
Also, another thing, is that I would like the content to be researched and potentially cited, to show validity. I don't want authors to write up based solely on their limited experiences. I've ran into people sharing their experiences and suggest cards. Believing this to be the common way to do things, but that experience is null and void outside of their meta. I also have done this, but this is a large reason I've stayed out of deck help.
June 18, 2014 2:55 p.m.
I think this is part of the reason why not just anyone will be able to write primers, unless they used their own deck listings and why it will be admin-monitored to ensure it is top quality material, that's unbiased, professional-looking, and above all, we're wanting it to show what can be good, based on mechanics and synergy. Experiences should not be included, it's not a 'I included this because...' type of thing.
These are the kinds of things they're wanting to avoid I believe.
June 18, 2014 3:07 p.m.
phaze08 I think experience is key for sharing sideboard choices and reasoning and describing what and why to sideboard the way you do.
not using hte term i.
using u/w/r control as an example.
Against the merfolk, sideboarding in sowing salt will help remove the cavern of souls first, allowing us to use our counters on their threats then mutavaults.
-2 mana leak +2 sowing salt. Since merfolk has a lot of cheap efficient threats and decent mana resources, we can remove the mana leaks, which are dead late game and with cavern out to put in our answer to caven. Which still leaves us with 6-10 counterspells mainboard.
The understanding of how important cavern of souls is in the matchup, comes from experience vs. just looking at other deck lists. Normally people would choose the mutavault first (in most cases you would). If it was able to be sourced/citedwhere someone else said this, to give that statement a bit more credit-ability, would be awesome.
As a side note to other players, AEther Vial needs answers too and yes Tectonic Edge helps a lot... ... but it's out of the scope of this example
June 18, 2014 5:30 p.m.
also back to intro pages, maybe it's better to have a page that talks about the general archetype. I think this is similar to HorrorAvengers idea. Basically, describe the different deck types, not a primer per say, but introduction into that deck type.
Aggro, Midrange, Control, Combo leads into Reanimator, Dredge, Sligh, Toolbox, leeds into the actual deck primers.
June 18, 2014 5:56 p.m.
I think we're going in the right direction.
My knowledge vs experience rant was just meaning just because our members might not be as experienced as the pros doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
June 18, 2014 9:22 p.m.
I know that this is kind of a vague question (and also I'm not sure if this goes in this part of the primer discussion), but how will EDH primers be separated? Having a primer for each individual Commander would be more time-consuming, but separating them by basic archetype would be really confusing, because simple color differences cause a wide swath of cards to be different.
Like, mono-red tokens with Krenko or Purphoros plays with much different cards than mono-white tokens with Darien, which plays much different than green-white tokens with Trostani or Rhys. There'd be two or three cards in common, to be sure (Here's looking at Coat of Arms ), but the variance would be pretty drastic.
June 18, 2014 10:52 p.m.
I see your point about a primer for an archetype really being more than just a single decklist. Could you do something with the existing folder system?
Could descriptions be enabled for individual folders? The idea would be that if someone clicks on the primer folder, they get a description and then a list of decks they can click on that are each tagged with the hub tag. It might be nice to have descriptions on folders anyway (do we already have that and I missed it?).
It might be just as easy to create another page and then embed the decklists in the page - except that then you would need to create the extra pages. If folders automatically generated a page for you with a description, then there's that page.
I would expect a fairly large number of primers to be possible to make and then for someone to keep track of. It seems like a lot of work for unpaid folks to do. At the same time, what you say about decklist != primer does make sense.
Maybe folders could also be embedable in text so that off of a front profile page, a primer writer could summarize their work concisely and in the order they want - and then in forum discussions the primer folder could be linked to.
I think that using just a hubis the quick and dirty way to get it done and let the community do its crowd sourcing magic. But you are right, some sense of what a primer gets a little lost that way.
Embedding folders and folder descriptions could be the controlled thing, then, if you want to control who can write the primers. It could be a capability that an admin could grant to a trusted user based on rank or whatever else.
It seems like adding a description feature and separate page generator to folders would be fairly light work (though not as simple as adding a hub - which is probably a little bit routine and very quick).
June 18, 2014 11:59 p.m.
smash10101 says... #35
Ooh, I was thinking of making a primer for a modern deck that doesn't have anything recent, glad I may be able to do that for tappedout.
Anyways, I think a section for sample decklists is really important. When I look at a primer, I want to see an entire decklist, not just a list of cards that are often included. It shows how the cards can work together. Other than that, I like the format as currently shown in the OP.
June 19, 2014 12:40 a.m.
The easiest way to satisfy the deck!=primer condition would be to just have one main decklist tagged by the primer hub with a link to several variations and a simple list of cards and reasoning in the description since the description could link to as many other decks as you wanted.
I guess it comes down to how much work the team at T/O is up to putting in both in the short term and in the long term.
Hub: minimal work both short and long term - quality control decentralized and entrusted to the community deck rating system already in place
Folder: light work short term, light work long term (if controls are implemented) - otherwise minimal work if left open to crowd source freedom (with the capacity to shut down an individual user's ease of primer making if need be by removing folder priviledges)
Wiki or other additional structure: significant work to implement with the possibility of exploding into unmanageableness on the long term if nothing about the selection of primer writers and maintainers is automated
June 19, 2014 7:38 a.m.
For EDH, do we have to decide definitively whether we will be doing primers on commanders or archtypes? I feel like we can have both coexisting, but I don't know. Also, I think it would be immensely helpful that while shouldn't put a must run decklist, having one or more example decklists could be extremely helpful to a primer.
Also, for non-EDH primers, it has been stated that we can't provide a definitive list, can we still provide a core of cards (for example, MBD requires 4x Thoughtseize , 4x Hero's Downfall , 4x Underworld Connections , and 4x Pack Rat , however, a lot of the removal and threat slots are more flexible)? I think that would helpful.
June 19, 2014 11:47 a.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #38
Okay I just had a thought. What if instead of using the deck hubs, which honestly I know it's the easiest but it seems really eh-ly formatted to primers, or making a new system entirely, what if we added descriptions for folders? We could set up multiple decklists within the folder for the different builds and go overe different builds in each decklist, while the folder description contains the overarching primer material. Idk if you can share folders, I don't use them often, but perhaps add a way to link the folder to a post if that can't be done already, and keep those posts in a separate forums area labled primers.
June 19, 2014 12:42 p.m.
I'm just gonna pitch in my idea here. I believe it'd make the most sense to create a blank primer "layout". This layout is to be used for every primer. Each primer is organized by deck strategy, then deck focus, then color.
For example, perhaps we take the archetype of combo. Well, that's the deck strategy. Comboing out. Well, what's the focus? Storm? Charbelcher? Manaless Dredge? These are all possibilities because they fall under the combo archetype. They all instantly win. Now by colors, say R/G storm vs Mono-Red Storm. Then inside of those colors we get each primer. The folders are easy enough to create, and if the need for a new folder is there, a new one can be created.
Another example to persuade you further. Let's look at one for EDH primers. We have tokens, the example given prior. Tokens is our first folder. Next, we look at the focus, and if we can't find a distinct focus, move on to colors. Then inside of the colors is commanders, with their own primers for a token version of that commander.
An example where we would use deck focus in EDH is voltron. Equipment VS Enchantments VS +1/+1 counters VS Infect. (Jor Kadeen, Bruna, Jenara and Skitherix) are just a few examples.
Just a thought I had that might work.
June 19, 2014 4:24 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #40
@myself wow didn't read guessling's comment beforehand and I should've.
June 20, 2014 1:12 p.m.
Blakkhand - I think it might be wiser to go for an archetype overview rather than a commander overview but also give examples of possible commanders. I think once everyone looks at a card they'll arrive at some conclusions as to its use ie.; oh I could use this for reanimator, or: oh I could use this for flicker etc.
June 22, 2014 8:24 a.m.
I love the idea, but much of Magic the Gathering is people forming their own ideas on strategies they see, or dream up. At what point with "Essential" cards do players cease to create and start to copy? Perhaps instead of lableing them as "Essential" make a list of the most popular cards in the format, maybe 10-15 per archetype, and let players work from there. That results in original MtG decks, as well as helping the community and authors maintain the threads realtively easily.
June 22, 2014 9:35 a.m.
ChiefBell I definitely see what you're saying, but the thing is, many commanders spawn their own archetypes. For instance, Zur control isn't really like anything else, and while you could pin under the broad classification called control, it is so different from other control decks it just doesn't seem to fit.
June 22, 2014 11:59 a.m.
Yes, there's commander based strategies, and there's archetypes where the commander isn't really needed.
There's basically two different ways you can build a commander deck, more commander oriented (voltron) or more of a let the cards speak for themselves type of deal (archetype) where sometimes the commander will never even be cast.
For EDH I think that when writing a Primer te author should choose wat type based on that criteria. Obviously the more Voltron commanders will have a more narrow Primer, while the "archetype" decks will be as broad as the amount of color combinations that support the idea of the build.
Anyway, I think that singleton Primers are going to be fairly difficult to write, so good luck to the people choosing to do so.
For example, prison, control, reanimator, aggro, would all be "archetypes" while decks built around commanders like Zur the Enchanter and Animar, Soul of Elements would fall into more of a "voltron" category, if you know what I mean.
June 22, 2014 12:19 p.m.
relevant deck folder features have been added (description, better update options, etc). file any bugs/further requests in a separate thread please.
June 22, 2014 12:55 p.m.
Hjaltrohir says... #48
Who is going to write them and when are they going to be posted?
June 22, 2014 3:25 p.m.
That isn't up to me. The folder improvements was just one of the suggested platforms that could turn into primers. If its appropriate we can figure out later how to bless folders as being primers and maybe add collaboration options.
June 22, 2014 3:30 p.m.
awesomeguy37 - I'm actually in the middle of writing one for Storm. It's in the revision part right now before I send it off to yeaGO for approval.
JakeHarlow says... #2
This makes sense and is consistent with many of the best primer's I've read.
June 18, 2014 11:56 a.m.