Very simplified and my own accord, but I always grouped decks by thier lands.
Bazzaar ( dredge, survival, or Welder/Reanimator/Dragon)
Forbidden Orchard (oath)
Cavern of Souls ( lions and tigers and bears)
Tolarian Academy (combo)
Library of Alexandria (control)
In general if I look at a list, and it has these lands,in the appropriate shell of, that is what it is. I'm honestly surprised no one else groups this way. The lands you run are the key deciding factor to what deck you are playing, not the win con or draw engine.
I think your "schools" approach feels a bit... shoehorn-y at times (in that Rob Hahn might not translate that well to
Having said that, as a combo player combo decks by their very nature are very disparate in a way control and aggro really aren't. Decks like ProsBloom, Metalworker, Doomsday, Dredge, etc. function so differently it's hard to categorize them together. Speaking of which, was there a Type I combo deck before Type II ProsBloom hit the scene? If not, maybe that's a good place to start.
To be clear: that's not how I classify decks within the "Combo School." The combo decks that are included in the "Restricted List Combo School" follow a very specific play pattern that includes: lots of mana acceleration, a high density of restricted cards, and a number of tutors (often unrestricted), and either a big mana or storm finisher (e.g. Fireball, Kaeverk's Torch, Tendrils of Agony), or recursive elements (like Twister loops or a bigYawg Will). Thus, decks in this school include: Pre-DCI Lotus/Twister decks, 1997 Prosperity Vice, 1997/8 Doomsday (recursion deck with Timetwister), 1998-2002 Academy, 2002 Burning Long, 2003-2008 TPS, 2005-6 Grim Long, Burning Oath, Dark Petition Storm, etc.
These are decks that follow the basic play pattern of: 1) generate lots of mana -> 2) draw or otherwise see lots of cards -> 3) play a critical mass finisher. They feature as high density of mana, and very few finishers (a single Fireball or Tendrils often). And they very often use disruption to protect this plan, like Duress, Defense Grid, Abeyance, City of Solitude, Xantid Swarm, Force of Will, etc. But if you map 2002 Burning Long and 2015 DPS, it's basically the same scaffolding, just different cards in that slot. No different with other Schools, like comparing 1994 The Deck with 2002 Keeper, except that the win conditions change (i.e. Morphling over Serra Angel, etc.)
Combo decks that are focused on assembling two random cards don't fall into this school.
ProsBloom was never a tournament level Type I deck because you didn't need Cadaverous Bloom.
That being said- in your position, I'd focus on the decks. Tell us when new, interesting things happened that changed the way we think about and play Vintage (or even Magic as a whole). Tell us those stories. Weave together the fabric of the format by showing us the world as it was when it changed greatly. What was it like when Comer figured out how to Xerox? How did it change the landscape? Which darlings did it kill? Which did it foster? How does it influence what we're doing today? The same for Shops (the more control variants, the ones today are really just Zoo decks imo) and Dredge and Oath and Control (the Deck, of course, comes to mind!). The schools can be your invisible scaffolding, that which guides you in delivering the stories, but they need not be the exoskeleton that binds the body from the outside and is all that's visible to the onlooker.
In any case, I do all of these things, but the Aggro Shops decks are still very obviously Aggro O'Brien School decks, which played with 4 Juggernaut and 4 Juzam in some cases.
Thanks to everyone who replied: it affirmed my inclination, which is to take a hybrid approach rather than trying to insist upon a player name for each school.
Old accounts should still function the way they used to. If you had access to the Adept boards before, you should be able to see them in archives. There's no plan to make anything public that wasn't previously public.
ugh, sorry @Log ... The base forum software has been updated a few times recently, and I've been hoping that updating TMD's software would "just fix" the issues, but obviously that hasn't been the case. Things have been busy for me lately, but I expect that to let up soon, and plan on having some quality time to build out some new TMD features. Hopefully we can get things in a usable state 😛
@fsecco I haven't touched that part of the site code so whatever you're seeing is default NodeBB behavior. If Follow Thread+@mentions is a combination that's causing people trouble, I can look into a solution.
I'm hoping to make a clear distinction between "archetype" threads and "deck tech" threads, your topic was a great example of the latter.
I want to give people leeway to teach players a deck the way they want - it's hard to dictate format in vintage when what matters varies so much for different decks ... so I'm leaving that up to the experts (you).
The "Archetype" topics are the ones I want to keep a tight leash on, so that new users can reliably expect the same experience from each of them. Not every deck type will have one of these threads. 2CM is just on the cusp, I think. (though I'm certainly open to debate on that)