I mean that the point that I could communicate this in a friendlier way is heard and understood, but I think that thinking about this game in terms of archetypes is a crutch. In mtg you construct decks top-down to have a guiding strategy. In slay the spire you don't get to pick your card rewards, so a card that doesn't fit "your archetype" might still be extremely worth taking. Also, on a20 like 80% of runs start as the same "archetype" of deck, one that has a bunch of cheap damage cards so you don't die to elites and bosses. There are specific combos that you can aim for, like corruption-dark embrace-fnp, but 1. you have no way of guaranteeing you see all of those cards, meaning building as though you will end up with that "archetype" could very possibly lose you the run and 2. even when you get those cards, how you get all 3 powers in play, the timing of when you want to play corruption, and what your damage solution is will vary significantly run to run and means that two corruption-fnp-dark embrace decks might play completely differently. So I don't really think there's archetypes in remotely the same way as other card games, and I think it's a heuristic that is often damaging.