Magic is the most important hidden information game where you choose from a pool of choices before starting to play.You act as if Magic was the only game ever.
Even using your own definitions the difference is really small, it doesn't make sense to use other terms.I've played, and invented card games where Stall and Toolbox are drastically different than Control.
If you prevent them from winning you are reducing their capabilities. It is redundat because they apply to the same thing.Stall
When the goal is to outlast the opponent, preventing them from making any game winning progress.
Control
When the goal is to reduce the opponent's capabilities as much as possible, then win easily.
Synergy =/= combo. A combo puts you in a very advantageous situation (Wins you the game). Otherwise using the word combo to define a kind of strategy is meaningless as everything is a combo including Big Guy + Big Guy.As far as Combo, combining two things to produce a strategy is common in any deck other than a Toolbox.
No combo I can think of in the History of Magic was created by Wizards. They test the cards they create, of course, and try to achieve balance but they are not made to specifically work with other cards outside of mechanics like "All dogs get bigger" and that makes the game more interesting.It's only highlighted in Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh because certain cards are made to work specifically with other cards, which as a rule is something I avoid when designing.
No it isn't. It was the first, it's the most popular and best selling card game. But it's been twenty years now, and these concepts have evolved and changed. I asked how these archetypes apply to Pokemon because they don't apply exactly the same way to every game. If you look at a wide variety of games instead of just the one you play, you find that these archetypes are recurring.Magic is the most important hidden information game where you choose from a pool of choices before starting to play.
I don't see what toolbox has to do with tutoring either, though it helps. The more complex your strategy, the easier it is for something to go wrong. You take up deck space protecting your strategy. Toolbox uses a minimalistic strategy that allows that deck space to be used with anti-meta cards and general boons instead.Also, please explain the relationship between a toolbox and "When your win strategy lacks complexity, but you have the tools to dismantle the opponents complex strategy." because I don't see it at all.
Honestly you've just never played a card game if you think that Control and Stall are the same thing. I know they both exist in Magic, it's a different feeling playing both archetypes and playing against good Stall and Control decks. I've been to world tournaments where Control reigned supreme, but you wanted to get paired against a Stall player even less because even if you could beat them, you might not be able to beat them before the clock runs out.Even using your own definitions the difference is really small, it doesn't make sense to use other terms.
No, that's called having a strategy. That's important in any archetype, it's why toolbox decks rarely win tournaments. Combo is a very very old idea in the Magic metagame, but it's not a real distinct playstyle. I haven't seen a Control deck in over 10 years that wasn't "combo", and I've seen plenty of aggro decks that utilize absurd combinations.Synergy =/= combo. A combo puts you in a very advantageous situation (Wins you the game). Otherwise using the word combo to define a kind of strategy is meaningless as everything is a combo including Big Guy + Big Guy.
Off topic, but it's just lazy game design. Exodia is one idea that gets turned into five cards, which unburdens the designer's work load. Do you know what it's like to make several hundred unique cards? But it's still not my style to do that sort of thing.No combo I can think of in the History of Magic was created by Wizards. They test the cards they create, of course, and try to achieve balance but they are not made to specifically work with other cards outside of mechanics like "All dogs get bigger" and that makes the game more interesting.
It's also has, by far, the biggest competitive community of any game of such caracteristics I can think of and is quite similar to Pokémon. If you think other game is more important for a discussion about game theory and competitive gaming, tell us.No it isn't. It was the first, it's the most popular and best selling card game.
They are not the same thing. Fatty aggro is not the same thing as Little guy aggro but they follow the same conventions and they are both aggro decks.Honestly you've just never played a card game if you think that Control and Stall are the same thing.
You lost me there. If you think that Combo is not a "distinct playstyle" there's no agreement possible.Combo is a very very old idea in the Magic metagame, but it's not a real distinct playstyle. I haven't seen a Control deck in over 10 years that wasn't "combo",
Honestly, you're just being an elitist at this point. In addition to the big card games like Yu-Gi-Oh, we've seen hundreds of collectible cards over the past twenty years and some of the them that lasted a few years have been vary good, much better than Magic. Then you've got limited card games, board games with hidden customizable elements, and video games like Pokemon. If you think that everything should be defined exactly as it relates to Magic you're probably just some whiny little kid who has never played another game.It's also has, by far, the biggest competitive community of any game of such caracteristics I can think of and is quite similar to Pokémon. If you think other game is more important for a discussion about game theory and competitive gaming, tell us.
Salamence is banned from OU, but when he was OU, Salamence was not just an aggressive pokémon since his typing gives awesome resistances and he has Intimidate and Roost to keep in there and stop many threats too, solely since he attains near-perfect coverage with just Dragon Claw and Earthquake. I had used a Salamence with Roost and Roar for many matches. He made a great shuffler for my team since intimidate makes opponents switch and Roar forces the opponent to switch again randomly, taking nice entry hazard damage while it was being done. I do understand what you say though: You can't use pokémon like Infernape to control much as he is pure aggression, just pointing out that you took a somewhat wrong example to suggest the idea.I think there are elements of control in a majority of Pokemon, but very few are obviously "Control", while some Pokemon like Salamence scream "Aggro".
Perhaps a team focused on spreading paralysis and then sweeping would fit this description?Control
When the goal is to reduce the opponent's capabilities as much as possible, then win easily.
Aggro
When the goal is to win as fast as possible through sheer force, usually with little meddling with the opponent.