So I was inspired by the name of this thread to talk about archetypes you would never want to play. Even though the point of that thread was to discuss archetypes WOTC hasn't supported (or might never support), the name sounded like a discussion of archetypes people would never play in their own cubes. I thought this was an interesting conversation worth having, so I thought I would start a thread on the archetypes you would never want to play (or would not want to play until WOTC prints some more interesting support pieces).
For me, I am really not a fan of "archetypes" built around hyper-specific single cards that act as a key piece to win the game but don't actually close out the game by themselves:
My issue with these cards isn't the idea that they aren't powerful, and it isn't because they cost a lot of mana to play. Even though none of these cards can win the game unaided, almost all of them can create game states that are effectively unwinnable for the opponent. The issues with archetypes based around these cards, in my view, are threefold:
1: They tend to lead to un-fun, low agency, drawn-out games.
2 They tend to not have enough pieces to allow for a reasonable level of consistency
3: They tend to feel "gimmicky" even when properly assembled.
Now, I know "un-fun" and "feel gimmicky" are subjective terms, but I will try to explain in more concrete detail.
First, archetypes like Wildfire, Upheaval, and Opposition lead to game states where the opponent is severely limited in options as to what they can do. Blowing up some number of lands, tapping down the opponent's entire board, or just returning everything to everyone's hand. The problem? This doesn't actually end the game! A random threat has to survive the Wildfire, or enough excess mana needs to be produced to re-build after the Upheaval in order to even advance the game beyond the new screwed-up position. If there is no ability of the player casting one of these spells to actually win, all they will have effectively done is extend the game.
Second, these archetypes require tons of specific support to enable, but they rely on one or two hyper-specific, borderline irreplaceable parts. An Opposition really needs the namesake card in order to function optimally, but it also requires having a board full of creatures that can be used to tap down the opponent's permanents. Upheaval and Wildfire builds usually require mana rocks to ensure that the player can have enough mana to do something meaningful after blowing up the world. The problem is that these big namesake cards usually aren't replaceable outside of maybe one similar effect. Sure, a wildfire player might also be able to pick up a Burning of Xinye, but that still doesn't lead to effect densities that are going to ensure a player can consistently do their wildfire thing. While not adhering to a singleton restriction could help to solve this issue, that raises an entirely separate question of "how many random hyper-specific high mana cost spells does my cube actually want to be playing?," which might not be easy for every designer to solve.
Finally, these archetypes feel incredibly gimmicky even when the stars align and everything works perfectly. I remember when I was first getting into Cube design and saw people like LSV building decks around Upheaval in the MTGO Vintage Cube. It was fun to watch LSV build these decks at first, but after a while, it got very repetitive. If he got the titular Upheaval, be would try to scoop up a bunch of mana rocks and card draw, and build a deck where he could always Upheaval and immediately re-build a board. I tinkered with an Upheaval deck in my own early cubes, but I decided against it after playtesting showed that the Upheaval deck always did the same basic thing with little variation: you either drew mana rocks and Upheaval and won, or you didn't draw one of those two things and died.
For these reasons, I do not like archetypes that rely on a single lynchpin card that can't win the game. They lead to boring board states and positions where either or both players could feel awfully.
Now, there are some cards which can act as "hyper-specific archetype anchors" that don't really fit the bill of what I'm talking about here. For example, Sphinx's Tutelage does something very specific and asks to built around, but it both has redundant copies in the form of Teferi's Tutelage and Psychic Corrosion, and can also win the game by itself. Likewise, Whip of Erebos decks looks like a sort of "feast or famine" situation where you either have your whip and can do your thing or you don't, but the Whip can easily be replaced by a bunch of normal reanimation spells and not fundamentally change the strategy of the deck. Basically, even though these card-centered archetypes share some qualities with their counterparts above, they aren't really the same because they can either actually win the game or be replaced.
What are some archetypes you would never play? Are there any situations that might make you want to play them?
For me, I am really not a fan of "archetypes" built around hyper-specific single cards that act as a key piece to win the game but don't actually close out the game by themselves:
My issue with these cards isn't the idea that they aren't powerful, and it isn't because they cost a lot of mana to play. Even though none of these cards can win the game unaided, almost all of them can create game states that are effectively unwinnable for the opponent. The issues with archetypes based around these cards, in my view, are threefold:
1: They tend to lead to un-fun, low agency, drawn-out games.
2 They tend to not have enough pieces to allow for a reasonable level of consistency
3: They tend to feel "gimmicky" even when properly assembled.
Now, I know "un-fun" and "feel gimmicky" are subjective terms, but I will try to explain in more concrete detail.
First, archetypes like Wildfire, Upheaval, and Opposition lead to game states where the opponent is severely limited in options as to what they can do. Blowing up some number of lands, tapping down the opponent's entire board, or just returning everything to everyone's hand. The problem? This doesn't actually end the game! A random threat has to survive the Wildfire, or enough excess mana needs to be produced to re-build after the Upheaval in order to even advance the game beyond the new screwed-up position. If there is no ability of the player casting one of these spells to actually win, all they will have effectively done is extend the game.
Second, these archetypes require tons of specific support to enable, but they rely on one or two hyper-specific, borderline irreplaceable parts. An Opposition really needs the namesake card in order to function optimally, but it also requires having a board full of creatures that can be used to tap down the opponent's permanents. Upheaval and Wildfire builds usually require mana rocks to ensure that the player can have enough mana to do something meaningful after blowing up the world. The problem is that these big namesake cards usually aren't replaceable outside of maybe one similar effect. Sure, a wildfire player might also be able to pick up a Burning of Xinye, but that still doesn't lead to effect densities that are going to ensure a player can consistently do their wildfire thing. While not adhering to a singleton restriction could help to solve this issue, that raises an entirely separate question of "how many random hyper-specific high mana cost spells does my cube actually want to be playing?," which might not be easy for every designer to solve.
Finally, these archetypes feel incredibly gimmicky even when the stars align and everything works perfectly. I remember when I was first getting into Cube design and saw people like LSV building decks around Upheaval in the MTGO Vintage Cube. It was fun to watch LSV build these decks at first, but after a while, it got very repetitive. If he got the titular Upheaval, be would try to scoop up a bunch of mana rocks and card draw, and build a deck where he could always Upheaval and immediately re-build a board. I tinkered with an Upheaval deck in my own early cubes, but I decided against it after playtesting showed that the Upheaval deck always did the same basic thing with little variation: you either drew mana rocks and Upheaval and won, or you didn't draw one of those two things and died.
For these reasons, I do not like archetypes that rely on a single lynchpin card that can't win the game. They lead to boring board states and positions where either or both players could feel awfully.
Now, there are some cards which can act as "hyper-specific archetype anchors" that don't really fit the bill of what I'm talking about here. For example, Sphinx's Tutelage does something very specific and asks to built around, but it both has redundant copies in the form of Teferi's Tutelage and Psychic Corrosion, and can also win the game by itself. Likewise, Whip of Erebos decks looks like a sort of "feast or famine" situation where you either have your whip and can do your thing or you don't, but the Whip can easily be replaced by a bunch of normal reanimation spells and not fundamentally change the strategy of the deck. Basically, even though these card-centered archetypes share some qualities with their counterparts above, they aren't really the same because they can either actually win the game or be replaced.
What are some archetypes you would never play? Are there any situations that might make you want to play them?
