Agree. If a deck name can give you a very good idea of what’s in the deck, it’s already great. In terms of archetypes, though, I would classify Bant Eldrazi as an aggro-slanted midrange deck.

Eldrazi is a very specific set of cards and strategies that see play in few places, if anywhere else.

The name Bant Eldrazi is perfectly fine. It gives a crystal clear image of the deck.

None of the cards you’ve listed as core are core to Hatebears, though occasionally, along with the original Thalia, appear in Hatebear decks. The only core card shared by GW Hatebear decks and GW Death & Taxes is Noble Hierarch.

The misnaming issues with the two decks come from a period where D&T and Hatebears were both primarily GW, and shared Leonin Arbiter and Thalia…both cards that no other decks in the format played. The fundamental deck designs are different. D&T uses creatures with comes into play abilities in conjunction with Æther Vial to function as pseudo Instants and Sorceries along with creatures with static abilities as pseudo enchantments.

The fundamental change that needs to happen is websites, announcers, etc. need to stop mislabeling D&T. As a friend reminded me earlier, the difference is pretty easy to find. Look at the deck. Does Torpor Orb shut down all or part of the deck? If yes, it’s Death & Taxes. If no, it’s Hatebears.

I have to say, I’ve been playing for a long time (since Alpha) and the term “Canadian threshold” means for less to me (in fact nothing at all) than a deck subtitled “grow” which was actually a very recognisable and repeated deck naming term for years and years.

The “grow” moniker is fine, if applied to a predominantly blue-green tempo deck. I see it still being used a little, here and there. So it’s not a completely unknown quantity.

Also, Jordan, grow decks aren’t “goodstuff” decks. The original played mostly draw spells, cheap counters and a couple of efficient threats. The main engine was Gush. This isn’t the architecture of a goodstuff deck. It’s pure tempo.
Abzan and Jund are great examples of a “goodstuff” deck in modern, where the primary focus is topdeck card quality and affecting the board rather than card filtering, some light permission and synergy (which is what grow decks have all been about)

Epiphany. Jordans delver should be called “hootie and the blowfish” cause the difference with reg temur delver is mandrils (hootie) and disrupting shoal which has a bunch of fish looking things on it (blowfish perhaps) 🙂

Honestly agree…most people were probably bitching because “Monkey Grow” is a terrible name that people dont wanna use on their pile of cards that cost them hundreds of dollars. There is no use arguing over how certain deck names “catch on”, as that isnt something we can quantify easily, though I would guess that baselines such as guild/clan names followed by archetype would more acceptable by a wider range of players. I honestly feel this conversation is a waste of time in the end. I applaud Jordan addressing what the readers were reacting to in the comments, but it will take way more than him writing an article to nail down naming conventions. Ultimately, people will do and say what they want, and I feel “Nexus” should provide their authors with the same freedom. Just be prepared to catch backlash when the names sound absurd 😉 jk

IMO, either names are actually bad. Look I not versed in legacy and have no idea what ‘Canadian Threshold’ is about (it’s not just an example, it’s really true), and until seeing the articles here at modern nexus to know wth was ‘monkey grow’.

I think that names should at last give a hint about the deck gameplay and composition. Color combination (the cloros itself or the ‘guild/shard’ names) should be placed at the deckname all times, and then a hint of about what the deck is about (Temur Tempo? Temur Delver? RUG Tempo?)

I meant lose them as in they’d get lost reading it, but I can see how that was ambiguous.

Are you sure?
I´d think the name “Canadian Threshold” would atrackt more views if anything, not lose them since a lot of players that have been playing magic for a bit longer are familiar with the deck in legacy or have at least heared of the name and would be eager to check out it`s modern adaptation.
I might be missunderstanding your post though

Its also important to note that its not just for kicks – naming things properly makes it easier to cluster into archetypes which is huge for metagame updates and event analysis.

Id say theres a tension between deck names being organic and trying to make them logical or organized. I loved the name “knightfall” for the kotr coralhelm combo but I dont know that its won out yet – I still see “bant retreat” and “coralhelm combo” and just “bant company”.

Why are delver decks called delver decks and not tempo? Why dont we call rug delver “rug goyf”? Is “temur traverse” or “temur reveler” better than “temur tempo”. Ill say that specifically “monkey grow” just sounds stupid and is not something I want to ever say out loud. Counter cat? Sure. Eggs? Sure. Taking turns? Sure. “Goryobreachrakul”? No. I dont know why some pass and some dont and I know you guys are gonna be screwed if you try too hard to buck convention.

I will say ive played modern since format started and if someone told me they were playing tin fins or canadian threshold id have no idea what they were talking about. Probably best not to assume that legacy names would clear things up for modern players.

This is exactly how I feel, and the principle concern that will inform our names going forward. I’ll take it a step further, and say that “Canadian Threshold” will lose far more readers than simply “Temur Delver,” or “Temur Tempo.”

Monkey Grow is an interesting name, and it has a history that can be researched. Same goes for decks you mentioned, like Affinity, Jund, etc.. We dont call Affinity “Colorless Artifacts”, and no one has a shit fit when we interchange Bogles with Bant Hexproof. Let names be names. Worry more about the strength of a deck, not what its been labeled.

Good analysis either way. I personally like deck names that follow (colors) (playstyle) (gameplan)