Archetype Shapes
Introduction
This post talks about archetype shapes, representing designs of which colors the archetype spans.
When designing a cube with synergies, is it common to have an archetype layout of 10 pair archetypes. Another popular archetype layout is 5 triangle archetypes. This post starts by talking about the minutiae of these two shapes and then introduces two other shapes, pivot archetypes and mono archetypes.
The shapes can be arranged in a uniform and symmetrical shape, or overlap in an arbitrary, non-symmetrical arrangement.
Pair Archetypes
The most classic archetype shape, pair archetypes span over two colors. Decks of that archetype normally include both colors.
Retail examples of pair archetypes:
The advantages of pair archetypes are simplicity and leanness.
Simplicity. Being the most common archetype shape in retail draft sets, players generally understand and expect pair archetypes, especially when a gold signpost is present.
Leanness. Pair archetypes do not take up many slots in the cube, making it fairly easy to support archetypes for all 10 color pairs.
The disadvantages of pair archetypes are similarity between decks and the feeling of drafting on rails.
Similarity between decks. Drafting the same pair archetype multiple times will usually yield a deck that plays similarly and has similar interactions every time. This can be mitigated by making the pool either shallow enough that it forces part of the deck to be filled with other cards to support the core strategy, or deep enough that there is choice between sub-strategies within the archetype.
Feeling of drafting on rails. Drafting a pair archetype may not be very interesting and may feel like there is little choice but to pick the card of that archetype. The same solutions described above help overcome this issue.
Occasionally, a deck of the archetype will use only one of the colors and not the other for various reasons. These decks tend to be less synergistic, but make up for it in terms of raw power - the second color may have simply been open. It could also mean that:
Archetypes spanning three colors corresponding to shard or a wedge have a triangle shape. Decks of these archetypes have four primary options of color combinations: 2-color decks (AB, AC, BC), or a 3-color deck (ABC). It is common too for a deck to be 2-color plus a splash of the last color for the best archetype enablers of payoffs in that color (ABc, ACb, BCa).
This only actually applies if mana fixing is not so good that there is no cost to playing three colors rather than two. In case mana fixing is too good, almost all decks of that archetype will be ABC, and then it works much more like a pair archetype described above. The rest of this section assumes good mana fixing is not the case, and playing two-colors is a legitimate option.
Retail examples of triangle archetypes:
Variety. Decks of the pair AB will feel distinct from AC and from BC, and ABC will feel like the most synergistic option, but also least stable in terms of mana. Sometime it is even possible to describe each pair in a distinct way. For example,
Graveyard can manifest as Reanimator, Madness or Dredge.
Space for creativity. The much deeper card pool leaves a lot more space for a drafter to do different things with the archetype, and the multiplied possibilities promote decks that are hybrids between archetypes. Graveyard and Counters means that a deck can be Graveyard, Counters, both, or neither.
Disadvantages to triangle archetypes are the leftover cards, bloat, and difficulty of signaling.
Leftover cards. If the archetype is drafted as a two-color deck, the support cards in the third color that was left out may not be interesting to other decks. It is important that the vast majority of archetype cards are generic enough to be desirable in other decks too.
Bloat. Triangle archetypes are reasonably bloated, as they require about 50% more slots than a pair archetype (the critical mass per color does not change much, and there are 50% more colors). This size increase can be lowered by using hybrid or artifact payoffs, for example:
Difficulty of signaling. Signaling is an issue with triangle archetypes. Using gold signposts like Sprouting Thrinax for Sacrifice would signal that decks need to include all three colors. Even a good signal like Tasigur, the Golden Fang for Graveyard is not perfect in that it is not usable in .
Pivot archetypes
An archetype can be centered in one pivot color which needs to be in all decks of that archetype. The pivot color is combined with other color(s) to produce a deck of that archetype.
The most common design for pivot archetypes is to concentrate either all payoffs or all enablers in the pivot color, and spread the other pieces around the other colors.
Examples:
Advantages of pivot archetypes are leanness and ease of signaling.
Leanness. This shape works well with archetypes that rely on incidental support, as the examples above showcase. Expensive cards, enchantments, and humans are all categories of cards that will appear in most or all colors. If few changes must be made to reach a critical mass of the archetype’s enablers or payoffs in the non-pivot colors, the space the archetype takes is minimal: only these few changes plus narrow cards in the pivot color.
Ease of signaling. There are only two or three payoff cards, and they are in the same color. When a player sees Sigil of the Empty Throne, they assimilate that Enchantments decks are supported. Then, they can draft basically white and pick enchantments from whatever other colors are open. Having payoffs or enablers concentrated on a single color greatly reduces the chance of splitting the archetype with another drafter, too.
Disadvantages are maintenance cost and lack of cohesion.
Maintenance cost. Relying on incidental support from other colors causes the archetype to be sensitive to gradual changes in critical mass. For example, the cube could have been designed with 6 enchantments in each color, but after a couple of swaps, blue is down to 3 enchantments and black is up to 8. Enchantments becomes much weaker, while Enchantments is much stronger.
Lack of cohesion. The same incidental support also causes the deck plan to suffer, depending on whether putting together the enablers in non-pivot colors actually constitutes a game plan. An enchantments deck might seems like it wants as many enchantments as possible on paper, but it should probably not run Favorable Winds, Hardened Scales or Thousand-Year Storm. To mitigate this, count the critical mass as only the cards that a deck of that archetype would actually maindeck, and favor cards generic enough to be playable in most decks of that color.
It is great when all 4 other non-pivot colors have enough support, but in practice it is hard to find a theme that provides incidental support in every single color. Incidental support in 3 out of 4 non-pivot colors is a more reasonable goal and works perfectly fine.
Mono archetypes
Another archetype shape centered on a single color, with a key difference from pivot archetypes: both enablers and payoffs are in that color, and there are few in other colors.
*Formerly called “sphere archetype”, from it being self-contained, and being represented as a single vertex of the color wheel. A furious mob camped outside my door and demanded I change the name.
Examples of mono archetypes:
Advantages of mono archetypes are ease of maintenance and ease of signaling.
Ease of maintenance. It is easy to keep track of how well supported a mono archetype is, since the cards are all in one color, and changes in other colors are isolated from it.
Ease of signaling. Similarly, it is hard to go wrong drafting a mono archetype, since the payoffs and enablers are all in the same color. The payoffs act as obvious signposts:
Disadvantages of mono archetypes are bloat in a single color and pressure on color identity.
Bloat in a single color. The fact that a single color needs to have critical mass for the archetype means many slots in that color will be dedicated to it. This is a serious drawback, unless the critical mass is already nearly present in incidental support. For example, it is common to run many elves in green, or lots of burn in red. Adding some payoffs for this deck as a reward for going deep into these categories, effectively seeding the archetype. This is why it’s common for these to be tribal archetypes.
Pressure on color identity. Related to the point above, the fact that many cards of that color are of the mono archetype, the identity of the color is skewed towards that archetype, making it very visible and it is common the color becomes too much about it. To prevent this, almost all cards of that archetype should pivot into other archetypes or be generically playable. For example, Gempalm Incinerator and Goblin Lackey are not good enablers because they are only usable in Goblin decks. Dark-Dweller Oracle and Mogg War Marshal are good since they are usable in many decks that do not care about Goblin count.
Edit: Continues on pt.2 below.
Introduction
This post talks about archetype shapes, representing designs of which colors the archetype spans.
When designing a cube with synergies, is it common to have an archetype layout of 10 pair archetypes. Another popular archetype layout is 5 triangle archetypes. This post starts by talking about the minutiae of these two shapes and then introduces two other shapes, pivot archetypes and mono archetypes.
The shapes can be arranged in a uniform and symmetrical shape, or overlap in an arbitrary, non-symmetrical arrangement.
Pair Archetypes
The most classic archetype shape, pair archetypes span over two colors. Decks of that archetype normally include both colors.
Retail examples of pair archetypes:
- Enchantments in Magic Origins
- Werewolves in Shadows over Innistrad
- Merfolk in Ixalan
- Ninjas in Modern Horizons
The advantages of pair archetypes are simplicity and leanness.
Simplicity. Being the most common archetype shape in retail draft sets, players generally understand and expect pair archetypes, especially when a gold signpost is present.
Leanness. Pair archetypes do not take up many slots in the cube, making it fairly easy to support archetypes for all 10 color pairs.
The disadvantages of pair archetypes are similarity between decks and the feeling of drafting on rails.
Similarity between decks. Drafting the same pair archetype multiple times will usually yield a deck that plays similarly and has similar interactions every time. This can be mitigated by making the pool either shallow enough that it forces part of the deck to be filled with other cards to support the core strategy, or deep enough that there is choice between sub-strategies within the archetype.
Feeling of drafting on rails. Drafting a pair archetype may not be very interesting and may feel like there is little choice but to pick the card of that archetype. The same solutions described above help overcome this issue.
Occasionally, a deck of the archetype will use only one of the colors and not the other for various reasons. These decks tend to be less synergistic, but make up for it in terms of raw power - the second color may have simply been open. It could also mean that:
- The archetype was designed in a way that one of the colors does not actually matter.
- There is a third color that almost supports or already supports the archetype. In this case, it may be worth making it a triangle archetype.
Archetypes spanning three colors corresponding to shard or a wedge have a triangle shape. Decks of these archetypes have four primary options of color combinations: 2-color decks (AB, AC, BC), or a 3-color deck (ABC). It is common too for a deck to be 2-color plus a splash of the last color for the best archetype enablers of payoffs in that color (ABc, ACb, BCa).
This only actually applies if mana fixing is not so good that there is no cost to playing three colors rather than two. In case mana fixing is too good, almost all decks of that archetype will be ABC, and then it works much more like a pair archetype described above. The rest of this section assumes good mana fixing is not the case, and playing two-colors is a legitimate option.
Retail examples of triangle archetypes:
- Mardu in Khans of Tarkir
- Tokens in Modern Masters 2017
- Pirates in Ixalan
Variety. Decks of the pair AB will feel distinct from AC and from BC, and ABC will feel like the most synergistic option, but also least stable in terms of mana. Sometime it is even possible to describe each pair in a distinct way. For example,
Graveyard can manifest as Reanimator, Madness or Dredge.Space for creativity. The much deeper card pool leaves a lot more space for a drafter to do different things with the archetype, and the multiplied possibilities promote decks that are hybrids between archetypes.
Graveyard and Counters means that a deck can be Graveyard, Counters, both, or neither.Disadvantages to triangle archetypes are the leftover cards, bloat, and difficulty of signaling.
Leftover cards. If the archetype is drafted as a two-color deck, the support cards in the third color that was left out may not be interesting to other decks. It is important that the vast majority of archetype cards are generic enough to be desirable in other decks too.
Bloat. Triangle archetypes are reasonably bloated, as they require about 50% more slots than a pair archetype (the critical mass per color does not change much, and there are 50% more colors). This size increase can be lowered by using hybrid or artifact payoffs, for example:
Difficulty of signaling. Signaling is an issue with triangle archetypes. Using gold signposts like Sprouting Thrinax for
Sacrifice would signal that decks need to include all three colors. Even a good signal like Tasigur, the Golden Fang for Graveyard is not perfect in that it is not usable in .Pivot archetypes
An archetype can be centered in one pivot color which needs to be in all decks of that archetype. The pivot color is combined with other color(s) to produce a deck of that archetype.
The most common design for pivot archetypes is to concentrate either all payoffs or all enablers in the pivot color, and spread the other pieces around the other colors.
Examples:
- Ramp is a common and natural example in sets and cubes. All enablers (such as Rampant Growth and Llanowar Elves are in green, but there are expensive cards in all colors that act as payoffs.
- Enchantments can be centered in , with Sigil of the Empty Throne and Starfield of Nyx as payoffs, but all colors have enchantments that act as enablers.
- Humans can be centered in , with Champion of the Parish and Thalia’s Lieutenant as payoffs. All colors - except green - have humans that act as enablers.
Advantages of pivot archetypes are leanness and ease of signaling.
Leanness. This shape works well with archetypes that rely on incidental support, as the examples above showcase. Expensive cards, enchantments, and humans are all categories of cards that will appear in most or all colors. If few changes must be made to reach a critical mass of the archetype’s enablers or payoffs in the non-pivot colors, the space the archetype takes is minimal: only these few changes plus narrow cards in the pivot color.
Ease of signaling. There are only two or three payoff cards, and they are in the same color. When a player sees Sigil of the Empty Throne, they assimilate that
Enchantments decks are supported. Then, they can draft basically white and pick enchantments from whatever other colors are open. Having payoffs or enablers concentrated on a single color greatly reduces the chance of splitting the archetype with another drafter, too.Disadvantages are maintenance cost and lack of cohesion.
Maintenance cost. Relying on incidental support from other colors causes the archetype to be sensitive to gradual changes in critical mass. For example, the cube could have been designed with 6 enchantments in each color, but after a couple of swaps, blue is down to 3 enchantments and black is up to 8.
Enchantments becomes much weaker, while Enchantments is much stronger.Lack of cohesion. The same incidental support also causes the deck plan to suffer, depending on whether putting together the enablers in non-pivot colors actually constitutes a game plan. An enchantments deck might seems like it wants as many enchantments as possible on paper, but it should probably not run Favorable Winds, Hardened Scales or Thousand-Year Storm. To mitigate this, count the critical mass as only the cards that a deck of that archetype would actually maindeck, and favor cards generic enough to be playable in most decks of that color.
It is great when all 4 other non-pivot colors have enough support, but in practice it is hard to find a theme that provides incidental support in every single color. Incidental support in 3 out of 4 non-pivot colors is a more reasonable goal and works perfectly fine.
Mono archetypes
Another archetype shape centered on a single color, with a key difference from pivot archetypes: both enablers and payoffs are in that color, and there are few in other colors.
*Formerly called “sphere archetype”, from it being self-contained, and being represented as a single vertex of the color wheel. A furious mob camped outside my door and demanded I change the name.
Examples of mono archetypes:
- Goblins in Onslaught
- Devotion in Theros
Advantages of mono archetypes are ease of maintenance and ease of signaling.
Ease of maintenance. It is easy to keep track of how well supported a mono archetype is, since the cards are all in one color, and changes in other colors are isolated from it.
Ease of signaling. Similarly, it is hard to go wrong drafting a mono archetype, since the payoffs and enablers are all in the same color. The payoffs act as obvious signposts:
Disadvantages of mono archetypes are bloat in a single color and pressure on color identity.
Bloat in a single color. The fact that a single color needs to have critical mass for the archetype means many slots in that color will be dedicated to it. This is a serious drawback, unless the critical mass is already nearly present in incidental support. For example, it is common to run many elves in green, or lots of burn in red. Adding some payoffs for this deck as a reward for going deep into these categories, effectively seeding the archetype. This is why it’s common for these to be tribal archetypes.
Pressure on color identity. Related to the point above, the fact that many cards of that color are of the mono archetype, the identity of the color is skewed towards that archetype, making it very visible and it is common the color becomes too much about it. To prevent this, almost all cards of that archetype should pivot into other archetypes or be generically playable. For example, Gempalm Incinerator and Goblin Lackey are not good enablers because they are only usable in Goblin decks. Dark-Dweller Oracle and Mogg War Marshal are good since they are usable in many decks that do not care about Goblin count.
Edit: Continues on pt.2 below.
