Made a fun thought experiment and sorted all my EDH decks by archetype so it’s easier to chose a small subset to take on FNM without ending up stuck with the same archetype.
Made a fun thought experiment and sorted all my EDH decks by archetype so it’s easier to chose a small subset to take on FNM without ending up stuck with the same archetype.
This is a cool idea, but I’m having trouble reading your categories upside down. Looks like you have Aggro vs Control on one axis, and Value/Midrange versus Uninteractive(?) on the other.
I think that alone is interesting, as I wouldn’t have considered any of those as categories to sort by. Outside of sorting by bracket, I usually don’t think much beyond that.
Usually people recognize aggro-control-combo triad.
I don’t have infinite combos, but my Kess can do billions of damage from sorceries basically out of almost empty board. Hence, I’ve named that Uniniteractive. Essentially decks that don’t look like they do much but you are on a clock to kill them before they do that.
Midrange is generally a space between aggro and control, which I think makes sense in 1v1, but I think is incorrect for EDH.
Midrange in EDH have to be some absolute value houses so they could survive being interacted by 2-3 players, going exponential on resources.
Control decks feature increased amount of interaction and enough value engines to be able to cast interaction and not to run out of fuel. But the wincons aren’t as strong as in midrange variants, control relies on breaking opponents value engines first.
Aggro is what you can expect from the name, put a tight timeclock on their relaxed value piles.
I need to mention that it’s hardly a 2d space. Jodah, realistically, is in midrange/uninteractive. But the rest fits nicely into categories or into spaces directly between.