Opening Hand
I’m a good bit in the dark as to what this is ultimately going to look like on the page, but when has that ever stopped Archons Corner from moving forward on an idea?
I suppose I should start with a bit of an introduction. I go by FIG on most of the KeyForge haunts. I’m (at best) an amateur player who first tried the game in mid-2019 and opened this absolute paragon of a Call of the Archons deck Palaangel, the Insomniac Shoppe Sargent (view deck). I promptly started playing around at whatever local scene I could find, won a 3-person weekend event (rock on, Bingle Bang Bang deck box!), and then started working the pandemic response. I didn’t play for like 2 years, during which the local scene dried up but I found all the podcasts that had happened by mid-2020 and listened to it all while I was trying to avoid self-destructive behaviors during 16 hour workdays. Since the worst of the pandemic, I’ve taken to some of the Discord servers to spout some poor takes (cards should switch houses over time; the discussion about KeyForge should be about “mechanics, super mechanics, and hyper mechanics”), lose at a few Vault Tours, and start the Players’ Union of the Crucible.
A Series of Unfortunate Takes
This first installment is going to be one of my usual questionable takes: the need for more deck metrics. Before I get deep into this, I want to say without any hesitation that the work of folks like Nova at Decks of KeyForge and DrazHorse Drazkor of the DrazScore (as well as the people that contribute to some of the scoring systems that are no longer maintained) is crucial to the way we understand the game of KeyForge. The AERC system (Aember control, Expected aember, aRtifact control, Creature control) is where a great bit of the common terminology for deck utility comes from: the need for hard R, CRush is a rush deck with C. I don’t want anyone to think that this article is anything other than a call for more metrics to describe a KeyForge deck: the more ways we have to describe the decks, the better we understand how they work and what we look for in them.
At the moment, we have functionally 2.5 public scores: SAS, a variant on AERC that includes a Synergies & AntiSynergies overlay; and the DrazScore, a streamlined version of the Z-Score. Looking to DrazScore first, it looks at the collected value of the cards in the deck with each card rated between 0 and 8. Most cards are around a 3 (perfectly average, worth a play in most situations, and isn’t likely to lose you the game or set back your plans by virtue of it being in the deck). Some cards are bordering on game breaking and meta warping (cough Trenk’s Creed cough), and more than a few are beyond situationally niche and arguable make a deck less desirable by inclusion (cough Tutor Bin-Rillo cough). SAS instead carries on the AERC metrics and adds “simple” combos, bonus enhancements (pips), and deck characteristics as a Synergy/AntiSynergy score. Each card gets a score for each of the AERC ratings, then the value of pips are added to individual cards (unique to your deck), and then the combos/deck characteristics provide additional value to your specific deck.
My short overview doesn’t give these scoring systems nearly enough credit, nor Nova and Drazkor for maintaining the metrics. Both look to quantify different things—overall value of cards in the deck, AERC+Synergies—but they both give players a way to actually compare decks in ways other than “this one has Horseman and that one doesn’t”. Here’s where my questionable take comes in: I don’t think these are particularly good ways to describe decks, and I don’t think two metrics are the be all end all of how to define a good deck.
Grumpus Old Men
KeyForge is somehow old enough to start stealing pulls off the Malort bottle at the party without its parents noticing. Despite this, there’s really only about 3 things that are part of the universal language of the game: SAS scores, the Delta (eventually I’ll get back to these foundational ideas and kvetch about them), and TCO is why the game still exists. I say we need more ways to describe the game of KeyForge. Specifically, we need a preferably simple way to describe and rate the archetypes of decks.
I know, I know: what even are archetypes in KeyForge? DevDev has a great rundown of it (hopefully I found a copy of the image to go here!), but I don’t think it’s something that could be turned into a rating system without significant work to operationalize things. The Sloppy Lab folks have put some thoughts into the aether on this topic, but I remember it being more of a qualitative endeavor: “Rush decks do this while Tempo decks do this”.
Instead I propose the TRUCCom Score.
Each card is scored (from -1 to +3) on five Attributes, and then each Attribute is totaled for the deck. Individual Attribute and deck total Attribute array should point to what general archetype the deck is, as well as secondary archetypes a deck could lean into. (See the tables below for definitions and explanations.)
For example, for TRUCCom scores (0,13, 25, 20, 8), the deck implies a highly flexible (25 Utility), Control focused (20 Control) deck with some high-value rush/threat plays and perhaps a simple combo that helps when it shows up. This TRUCCom Attribute array with SAS/AERC and DrazScore could give a additional information about how the deck works: maybe SAS shows a high A, low E, and high R and C, so you know it doesn’t make a lot of aember, but it controls it well and likely is flexible enough to handle artifacts and creatures while it looks to stabilize and grind out a win.
Wrap Up
What do you think about the TRUCCom Score? The name is terrible, so I’m open to suggestions there, but do you think another tool to gauge the general archetype-y-ness of a deck would be helpful for evaluating a deck or learning how to play it or is it something that goes against some spirit of the game where a deck can only be understood by playing it? You should definitely join the Archons Corner patreon and tell Drazkor it should be part of the DrazScore if you think it’s a good idea.
The other question is what do you think about segments like this? A little history, a questionable take, and then some arguably worse take on what could fill the gap? I don’t want everything to follow this format, but this is the style I typically enjoy writing. In the future, I hope to get an occasional interview written up, maybe get word out about Players’ Union ideas, and look back on some of the concepts from the early days of the KeyForge podcasts. I’m probably not the person you want to talk much about strategy, but I promise I have questionable takes about that, too.
(If you suggest that I should watch youtube videos, I will turn this car around: No matter how good TableTop Royale tournaments were, I do not have time to watch video content.)
If you have thoughts for what should be covered here, I think there’s an e-mail address for this site/newsletter, so send a message there: I’ll try to respond that way, but you also may just see it as an article with a note saying that you suggested the topic.
The last thing I want to say here is thank you to Wookie. I mentioned that listening to him during COVID genuinely helped pull me through some very rough times. I don’t know how much should be said right here, but I remember listening to the podcast when it was just him talking about the game, odd cards he found, and some dramatic readings. Now, 5 or 6 years later, I want to thank him for a chance to get my own questionable takes out into the aether: I’m pretty sure my ramblings won’t be as...impactful as Wookie’s idea of mixing house pods to make a deck, but maybe it moves the needle on something like getting the names of Alternative Format creators into the Alternative Formats Guide.