MTGNexus

FYI, I would prefer this not turn into debate where anybody tries to convince or explain to anybody else why they prefer the presentation they prefer.

Edit: Well, except to me. You know what I mean.

I sort by card type, with Creature being the prime type (artifact creatures or enchantment creatures are sorted under 'creature').

Partly it's that I have a penchant for modal cards, and the other part is that it's sometimes hard to describe what a card does in terms of the role it plays (like, what does Sleep actually do? What's its 'role'?).

Sinis wrote: ↑

4 years ago

like, what does Sleep actually do? What's its 'role'?

Get cut for being terrible?

Taken seriously, most likely it's either a finisher for a creature-based beatdown deck, or a really bad overpriced fog in a turbofog deck or something. Maybe it could be a silly political tool to try to get people to attack some archenemy. You can't really define a card's role without the context of the deck it's in, though - that's sort of the point. You have to understand the deck before you can understand a card's role within that deck.

I'm not imagining roles being that specifically defined, though. All of those example uses for Sleep could go under "Control".

lyonhaert wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'm not imagining roles being that specifically defined, though. All of those example uses for Sleep could go under "Control".

I actually think "Control" is a bit too broad to be a useful descriptor, though. I would go a step down and ask, "In what way does this card help control my opponents?" In that sense, control is more useful as a tactic while a card's function contributes to said tactic.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Sinis wrote: ↑

4 years ago

like, what does Sleep actually do? What's its 'role'?

Get cut for being terrible?

Taken seriously, most likely it's either a finisher for a creature-based beatdown deck, or a really bad overpriced fog in a turbofog deck or something. Maybe it could be a silly political tool to try to get people to attack some archenemy. You can't really define a card's role without the context of the deck it's in, though - that's sort of the point. You have to understand the deck before you can understand a card's role within that deck.

Sleep is *not* terrible!

But, that said, I guess it's a finisher in an aggro deck (well, that's how I currently play it in one of my decks).

But, what about other cards with multiple roles? I play Cut // Ribbons in Niv Mizzet Reborn. It's not strictly removal, and not strictly a finisher.

Sinis wrote: ↑

4 years ago

But, what about other cards with multiple roles? I play Cut // Ribbons in Niv Mizzet Reborn. It's not strictly removal, and not strictly a finisher.

As per my other post, if you've got a card that fills multiple roles, you either pick the more important role or just pick one arbitrarily. You could also put it in both roles if you want, or make a separate role that fits both if you have multiple such cards, but I don't really like those options personally.

People seem to put a lot of stock in being able to find a card in their list, but I don't see why that would be an important usecase. More useful, imo, is being able to use the decklist as a way to understand what the deck is doing as a whole. If you really care about a specific card, just control + F.

GloriousGoose wrote: ↑

4 years ago

If a card performs multiple important roles, it goes under the "Value" column for me. Otherwise, even if it has a secondary benefit, it goes under the primary role it fills.

TIL that all my decklists should be a single column titled "Value." =P


---


It's interesting, When I build a deck, I sort my cards by function, but when I write or read a deck, I sort by type. Type is always something that everyone will understand, and also be able to agree on, while function tends to be more nebulous or opinionated.

This is why when I share a deck, I also write about what the deck is trying to accomplish, and how it tries to accomplish it. The context gives a lot more value to the decklist.

bobthefunny wrote: ↑

4 years ago

This is why when I share a deck, I also write about what the deck is trying to accomplish, and how it tries to accomplish it. The context gives a lot more value to the decklist.

Personally I find a function-sorted decklist provides a deeper AND faster understanding of a deck than a summary. "This deck aims to ramp out the commander quickly" could mean 10 pieces of ramp, or it could mean 35 pieces of ramp - and either way, it's a longer sentence to read than simply "Ramp (35)". I also think it's just easier to look at a pseudo-description via function headers while looking at the decklist, rather than needing to refer back to the description. Even besides that though, other than simply making it easier on the eyes, I see almost no utility in having type sorting. You could name all the headers random gibberish with the cards sorted randomly and it would be about as useful (aside from lands - lands are usually both a function and type header so it works just as well either way, outside of corner cases like tabernacle and dark depths).

I definitely don't agree with the "value" header Goose suggested, though. To me, value usually means some kind of card advantage generation, most typically in a deck that has so few value-generating tools that it makes the most sense to consolidate them. In a deck that has lots of different types of value generation - token generation, draw spells, other repeatable effects - then it probably doesn't make sense to use such a broad category.

Taking a look down the decklists on the front page, the vast majority are type-sorted. Ugh. But the topic is still useful even if you only use function-sorting when building and not the final list - for building, I tend to count a multi-function card in both camps, to a certain extent. But while I often have target numbers for each function while I'm making early cuts on a deck, when I get down to the final cuts things tend to get pretty flexible and the exact numbers are less important - or I might even decide that, because there are so many good cards for one category and/or so few good cards for another, I might change the numbers in a significant way.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Personally I find...

Remember what I said I did not want this thread to become?

lyonhaert wrote: ↑

4 years ago

DirkGently wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Personally I find...

Remember what I said I did not want this thread to become?

That's why I also put semi-relevant stuff in there It's like when I want to comment on the previous rcotd so I write something quick and boring about the new rcotd. It's a flawless plan that no one will notice.

But also most people are just saying "I sort by type" which presumably isn't useful either. Is there really much more to say on the topic? It's mostly a matter of preference.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

4 years ago

lyonhaert wrote: ↑

4 years ago

DirkGently wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Personally I find...

Remember what I said I did not want this thread to become?

That's why I also put semi-relevant stuff in there It's like when I want to comment on the previous rcotd so I write something quick and boring about the new rcotd. It's a flawless plan that no one will notice.

But also most people are just saying "I sort by type" which presumably isn't useful either. Is there really much more to say on the topic? It's mostly a matter of preference.

Aye, it's a matter of personal preference. And everybody who said they prefer to show/read a decklist sorted by type explained why that works better for them. That is the kind of information I was gathering in this thread and is acceptable. Also acceptable is explaining why one prefers sorting by function.

What's not acceptable in this thread is replying to others' explanation of their preferences and belittling that preference and/or proselytizing your own to them.

I agree that organizing by type isn't as useful as by function for me to develop a quicker understanding of what the deck is trying to do. However, I find it a bit distracting when I read decklists that list the same card under multiple function categories. To me I initially "see" a Commander deck with like 132 cards until I notice the duplicate listings.

I saw a great idea around this on someone's Archidekt list. I think they had it sorted by type though, but at the bottom in the description they listed the number of cards that served each function to give that quick and broad deck overview. I plan to change my decklists such that I still slot a card under its primary function/role, but then I'll add that breakdown in the description so that secondary, tertiary, etc totals are accounted for.

ChocoDude wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I agree that organizing by type isn't as useful as by function for me to develop a quicker understanding of what the deck is trying to do. However, I find it a bit distracting when I read decklists that list the same card under multiple function categories. To me I initially "see" a Commander deck with like 132 cards until I notice the duplicate listings.

I saw a great idea around this on someone's Archidekt list. I think they had it sorted by type though, but at the bottom in the description they listed the number of cards that served each function to give that quick and broad deck overview. I plan to change my decklists such that I still slot a card under its primary function/role, but then I'll add that breakdown in the description so that secondary, tertiary, etc totals are accounted for.

If you find again the list where you saw that, it would be interesting to see their example.

Just had a thought (probably 'cause you just read Choco's post, Sanity...) about starting to write out in plain text something like:

"Tribal Creatures: X number
Lords: X number
Ramp: X number
Disruption: X number
Win Cons: Y Number"

After the deck list. Only an extra 30 words or so. Something to consider, perhaps.

If I find it, I'll post that decklist example, but Sanity basically has it. It was just a short description a la:

Sacrifice: X
Ramp: X
Draw: X

They had it sorted from highest to lowest too.

I too like to sort by function, since I think it's the most relevant way to see the deck's strategy at a quick glance instead of scrolling through card type. I usually break my decks down into the general effects that I most want to see. My Memnarch deck (link in sig) is a prime example of how I generally sort my decks and I also find that it's very useful in ensuring that I have the right density of a specific effect.

But, to be more specific for your thread, I sort by general effects i.e. "Draw"; "Removal"; "Mana Sources"; "Tutors" etc.

I like to sort out by function. Globally all my decks are the same, depending on the strategy of the deck. It's something like:

8-10 Removal
2-4 Mass Removal
8-10 Draw
10-12 Ramp
3-6 Tutor
12-16 Deck strategy (Reanimate, Lifegain, Tokens, Copy stuff)
4-5 Wincondition
4-5 Goodstuff/Specific cards/Shenanigans

After I sorted out by function, I sort out by manacost and after that by type. So I make new piles over and over again. Building a deck takes a lot of time, sometimes around 4 hours. By sorting out by manacost I can check whether the curve is too high or not. By sorting out by type I can check whether I play enough creatures (Very handy when you play somehting like Animar)

With stuff like Disciple of Bolas I check what's the most important thing they do when it enters the battlefield. In the case of the Disciple it's a ton of card draw, so I put it in the card draw section.

I sort my stacks based on primary function I need them for in the deck, and then some get sub divided.

Usually, I have "counterspells", tax, damage via ability, "save my butt", save my board, big dumb things, sac outlets, card draw, creature buffs, etc.

Removal is divided into mass and targeted, and cross divided into permanent, creature, Planeswalker, and enchantment / artifact specifically. Some cards like Curse of the Swine can be in either category to me. Creature buffs are divided into anthems, abilities, and evasion gets its own category sometimes. Protection abilities fall under "save my board".

It seems like a lot, but my decks can't do everything so it's not overwhelming. The real trick is making sure you keep the primary in mind, and then see how much you get that card to cross over to other areas (the swords of x and y are good examples). It helps me keep my decks from getting too much or too little of something I feel it needs to function.