The March Vintage Gauntlet by Aaron Kerzner

[Kerz]

http://www.themanadrain.com/marchmeta.htm

The spacing is a bit off at the moment, but is being worked on by none other than our big daddy Z.

[CHA1N5]

FYI:  it's CRON.

[The Atog Lord]

No Control Slavery? Its had at least a bit of success lately.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Nice work Kerz. What about Food Chain Goblins?

@TAL: Workshop and Control Slavery each posted one finish in February, in March so far it's all Workshop. I think omitting Control Slavery isn't a terrible idea.

[Samite Healer]

@TAL: Workshop and Control Slavery each posted one finish in February, in March so far it's all Workshop. I think omitting Control Slavery isn't a terrible idea.

Just because a deck hasn't won more than one event doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in a gauntlet.  I think a gauntlet, to be most effective, should include every deck that has a fair chance of showing up at an event and a reasonable ability to win a tournament.  Control Slaver has done just that, as it has won an event, top 8'ed another, and I have seen numerous people playing it at type 1 events.

I consider the gauntlet incomplete without that deck.

Now that I think about it, I also think that BroodstarRunner.dec should have a spot in the gauntelet as well.  A quote from the gauntlet:

There was two ways I added a deck to the gauntlet: consistent high finishes, or that the deck was played a reasonable amount, and represented an extreme of sorts that needs to be play tested against. For example, Vengeur/Ninja Mask tests your decks competency against early threats in the form of large creatures, while mixed with disruption.

BroodstarRunner has also had some success, including:

- 1st  place finish in Hadley by Snachos
- 1st/2nd split between Scaldmonger and I on LI
- 2nd place finish in Cape Cod by me
- Top 16 in Waterbury out of 191
- 9th place finish in NJ by Snachos

I don't know, but I've been seeing and hearing a lot more about this style deck (including Injectilio's U/R Stacker-style deck) than I have about Ninja-Mask.  A workshop based aggro deck should definitely be included, as I can GUARANTEE that you will see at least one two copies of this deck at EVERY power tournament in the next 6 weeks anywhere in the Northeast.

[Kowal]

Broodstarrunner tests a different extreme - an aggro deck that explodes in to combo in most of its wins.  I agree with Jeff, this is a concept that isn't yet recognized in Kerzner's gauntlet.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I think a gauntlet, to be most effective, should include every deck that has a fair chance of showing up at an event and a reasonable ability to win a tournament.

Under this definition, we could add Control Slavery, UR Stacker builds, and FCG, as well as EBA and Fish. I don't think that this complete a set of viable decks was necessarily the goal of this gauntlet.

[Dante]

I don't think that this complete a set of viable decks was necessarily the goal of this gauntlet.

I think that's a good point, whether it's an initial test gauntlet or final-stages-pre-Gencon-testvsevery-deck-you-expect-to-see type gauntlet.

If it's the latter, then add those decks Phil mentioned plus Belcher.

If it's the former, the "I have a viable idea so let's test against common strategies", I would include:

1 weenie aggro deck (r/gish)
1 workshop aggro/aggro-combo deck (TnT, broodstar)
1 fast combo deck (i.e. belcher,draw7,tps)
1 combo deck with midgame (dragon)
1 aggro-control with null rods
1 classic control (keeper or landstill)
1 Hulk
1 Slavery

the last two aren't really categories because they have 1-card combos (tog, slaver) and a lot of cards designed around those combos.

[Kerz]

The "Why didn't you include deck X" comments are getting out of hand, so I'll take a few moments to address critisizm thus far.

Not to sound redundant, I want to paraphrase and repeat something that was in the Gauntlet.

This gauntlet is for the players. If I included every deck that has ever won a power tourney, along with many decks that havn't shown any success at all (yet they are still talked about), the gauntlet would lose all value that it ever had to type one players. Simply put, some decks don't see enough play on the worldwide front to be widely tested against. When I bring in the element of "deck extremes" to find where your deck buckles, I belive I have included all of the VIABLE extremes.

-Oshawa Stompy is the hate extreme, with Null Rod, Root Maze, Naturalize, and Chalice of the Void (sb)

-Draw7 is the blisteringly-fast combo extreme, with a goldfish game of turn 2 normally with Force of Will backup.

-Tools 'n Tubbies is the high-threat-density extreme, with fast tubbies, and a way to keep them coming (Survival/Welder). Survival Mask can also fit into this category, but it has more disruption.

-Keeper represents the 'pure control' extreme, for reasons I don't think I need to even state. See--> Zherbus's Primer.


These are the real extremes, which are obviously lacking (if you simply tested against these, you probably wouldn't have enough play experience), but I belive for their function, this list is optimal.

1 weenie aggro deck (r/gish)
1 workshop aggro/aggro-combo deck (TnT, broodstar)
1 fast combo deck (i.e. belcher,draw7,tps)
1 combo deck with midgame (dragon)
1 aggro-control with null rods
1 classic control (keeper or landstill)
1 Hulk
1 Slavery

Certain 'extemes' mentioned arn't really extremes at all, but rather deck archetypes, really (and I'm not talking abotu Hulk/Slavery). Also, some strategies you mentioned are almost completely moot when wanting to playtest. 'Weenie Aggro'? Isn't normal aggro simply better? Isn't Oshawa Stompy above and beyond 'Weenie Aggro'? Also, 'combo deck with midgame' is only really one (competitive) deck, which you already mentioned.

Let me address Jeff (Samitheealer) directly:
I think the deck that you innovated is excellent (broodstarrunner.dec), but it shows way too many similarities to TnT (which is, factually, the best workshop deck) to be included, in my opinion. It is also close to Stacker (almost strictly inferior TnT). I am not saying it is bad per se, but honestly, I really wouldn't have much to write about it after going over TnT's strategies. It is also a brand new deck on the scene, getting its first win last week. The deck has shown it power, but in short, it is just too close to any other workshop aggro deck.

In conclusion, everyone must understand that when a deck hasn't won ANYTHING, or is played by very few worldwide, it simply CANNOT not be included in the gauntlet.

Aaron Kerzner

[Ric_Flair]

Kerz excellent job.  Very comprehensive.  I am impressed.  I also enjoy the links to discussion and deck performance.  Good job.  Oh and you forgot Revenge of 1997.dec  

Seriously though, gauntlets are meant to be every deck, but every good deck.  If your deck isn't on here it is either a) too new; or b) not good enough.  Don't be sad.  Play it and make it famous.

[JACO]

The "Why didn't you include deck X" comments are getting out of hand, so I'll take a few moments to address critisizm thus far.

Not to sound redundant, I want to paraphrase and repeat something that was in the Gauntlet.

This gauntlet is for the players. If I included every deck that has ever won a power tourney, along with many decks that havn't shown any success at all (yet they are still talked about), the gauntlet would lose all value that it ever had to type one players. Simply put, some decks don't see enough play on the worldwide front to be widely tested against. When I bring in the element of "deck extremes" to find where your deck buckles, I belive I have included all of the VIABLE extremes.

In conclusion, everyone must understand that when a deck hasn't won ANYTHING, or is played by very few worldwide, it simply CANNOT not be included in the gauntlet.

As Jeff (SamiteHealer) already mentioned, a deck doesn't have had to win a tournament even to be considered viable. There are a lot of up and coming decks, and if you ignore them then you are not going to be fully prepared when you walk into a tournament. There are a number of decks that you don't have that I would consider VERY viable right now, including:
Control Slaver
2 Land Charbelcher (BURG, with Tropical and Bayou)
Mad Dragon
BlueRed Fish
Vengeur Masque (UGW, UGR, and UGB builds)

While you may have extremes in your list, that doesn't help when you need to know the real nuances of a matchup (and discover keys to beating deck X or Y through playtesting) because you haven't included deck X or Y in your 'gauntlet.'

If you are not testing against the 5 decks above, then you are definitely missing a major part of the metagame, as these decks are AMAZING right now if properly constructed and piloted. I know, because I actually have been playtesting against them, and not merely theorizing.

PS. While I love Ninja Mask as much as the next guy, it hasn't done dick in tournaments compared to the 3 different Vengeur Masque builds, which have placed in European top 8's regularly.

[ctthespian]

Nice job again Aaron.

In response to everyone's include ~this~ deck.  What the Gauntlet is meant to be is to test your deck against the best deck(s) of every type.

I try to create my own personal gauntlet of the best 12 decks that I can.  That's only because I fully proxy decks on heay, card stock, paper and make the decks to fit in tournament pack decks and their display box.

Still the idea of a Gauntlet is to test your deck against the best.  Proving your deck against underpowerd fish for example isn't going to mean anything even if it's in your environment.  However with the newer or more specialized decks like broodstar.dec or venguer mask, you can always search the threads to come up with a decklist to throw together.  Still I think that Kerz did a good job of choosing decks that adequately test a deck as broodstar, venguer and others could.

Point is Kerz is doing a small service by keeping a number of decks worthy of a gauntlet in one place in a very organized manner.  Don't start pissing contests about decks that you think should appear beacause of personal feelings.  Hey if it's your deck and people don't test against it that's all the better for you right?

-Keith

[Kerz]

First point: Thanks to everyone for the support (cttespian, Dr. Sylvan, Ric_Flair), and I apprecaite it.

Second point:  JACO, I understand you are trying to give constructive critizm, but I don't need, and a sure as hell do not WANT another list of "include these". Your list is totally flawed:

Control Slaver
2 Land Charbelcher (BURG, with Tropical and Bayou)
Mad Dragon
BlueRed Fish
Vengeur Masque (UGW, UGR, and UGB builds)

1. Control Slaver - This is an inclusion for my next article, if any. It really hasn't put up a lot of numbers, as Dr. Sylvan has already stated. A few certain people have done good things with it, and if it really is as strong as people say, it will win on a larger scale and earn its inclusion.

2. Belcher has placed high in TWO tournaments:
Here:
http://www.morphling.de/coverages/top8decks.php?id=110 - 1st, 8th
and Here:
http://www.morphling.de/coverages/top8decks.php?id=94 - 3rd

Note: The dulmen tournament it won was the same day as regionals, and most of the high-level players were absent. Also, Belcher is nearly nonexistant in the United States metagame.

3. Mad Dragon
This deck has been beaten to death- maybe Zherbus would like to comment on it. Aside from being (again) virtually absent from the US meta, it has only had a few top eights.

I'm not going to beat around any bushes here: the deck sucks, and I do not want it in my article.

4. Blue Red Fish

This deck is a lot worse than Gay/R, and it has not won ANYTHING in the past 6 months (literally). It is good at hating, but many others are better.

5. Venguer Mask

I included this in my article. I didn't use any names though, referring to it only as "survival mask" as a whole. I used Ben Kowal's "Ninja Mask" version just because he had done a lot of work on it and consistantly did well when he played it. He is also a TMDer, not a random german guy I can't get in touch with at all.

The goal of the article was to be thourough, but concise. I didn't want to go overboard and put these type of decks as almost pure filler, because I and many others know they arn't worth testing extensively against on a worldwide scale. If these decks litter your metagame by some chance, than your case is so rare you'll have to search TMD for the lists.

[jpmeyer]

There really isn't that much of a need to test decks in a gauntlet that are really similar.  This is why there's no real point to testing against like 3 different Fish decks and multiple Slaver decks and multiple Workshop decks and multiple Dragon decks and multiple Survival decks.

There's also the reason that there really shouldn't be so many decks based around the same card or cards.  Eventually the best should rise to the top, and at the very least from whatever your testing has shown to be the best.  I'm not going to bother worrying about Control Slaver, Stax, and Mud.  I'm just going to deal with Workshop Slaver.  And if I'm going to deal with a Survival deck, it'll be Oshawa Stompy and I'll leave out Survival Dragon and TnT.

[Matt]

An argument could be made for Belcher under the "extreme" criterion - you'd be hard-pressed to find a more single-minded combo deck.

[JACO]

Second point:  JACO, I understand you are trying to give constructive critizm, but I don't need, and a sure as hell do not WANT another list of "include these".

First of all, I never said 'include these' in your list. My point is if you are playtesting for Origins and GenCon, you should definitely be playtesting against these 5 decks (in addition to what you had written about), because they will be present, and they will do well.

Your list is totally flawed:

Control Slaver
2 Land Charbelcher (BURG, with Tropical and Bayou)
Mad Dragon
BlueRed Fish
Vengeur Masque (UGW, UGR, and UGB builds)

1. Control Slaver - This is an inclusion for my next article, if any. It really hasn't put up a lot of numbers, as Dr. Sylvan has already stated. A few certain people have done good things with it, and if it really is as strong as people say, it will win on a larger scale and earn its inclusion.

This deck has already shown it's strenth in both New England and Europe, so I don't know what else you are looking for.

2. Belcher has placed high in TWO tournaments:
Here:
http://www.morphling.de/coverages/top8decks.php?id=110 - 1st, 8th
and Here:
http://www.morphling.de/coverages/top8decks.php?id=94 - 3rd
Note: The dulmen tournament it won was the same day as regionals, and most of the high-level players were absent. Also, Belcher is nearly nonexistant in the United States metagame.

You're right, Belcher has placed high in TWO LARGE tournaments, and probably more smaller ones. How many large tournaments has UW Landstill won? Your argument about placing doesn't hold water.

3. Mad Dragon
This deck has been beaten to death- maybe Zherbus would like to comment on it. Aside from being (again) virtually absent from the US meta, it has only had a few top eights.

I'm not going to beat around any bushes here: the deck sucks, and I do not want it in my article.

If you think this deck sucks, you're just flat out wrong. It sounds like your personal disdain for the deck has more to do with your decision not to include this than anything else. It has already proved it's worth in numerous tournaments:
03-14-2004 Dreamer's MN - 3rd/4th place - LOOK, IT'S AMERICA! REJOICE!
03-13-2004 SoCal Power - 4th & 6th places - LOOK, IT'S AMERICA! REJOICE!
03-07-2004 Dulmen - 3rd place
02-29-2004 Eindhoven - 8th place
02-22-2004 Moers - 1st place
02-08-2004 Dulmen - 1st place
But no, you're right, it probably sucks and shouldn't be tested against. I remember when people said the same thing when Chapin first unleashed his Type 1 Gro deck.

4. Blue Red Fish
This deck is a lot worse than Gay/R, and it has not won ANYTHING in the past 6 months (literally). It is good at hating, but many others are better.

By BlueRed Fish, I mean to include the many iterations of Fish and Gay which both splash red. This deck has finished in many top 8's in the US, and is a tough match for Psychatog, Keeper, and the Slaver variations, so I don't see how it is not necessary to test against it, especially since Hulk has widely been proclaimed the best deck as of recently by many of the Internet talking heads.

5. Vengeur Mask
I included this in my article. I didn't use any names though, referring to it only as "survival mask" as a whole. I used Ben Kowal's "Ninja Mask" version just because he had done a lot of work on it and consistantly did well when he played it. He is also a TMDer, not a random german guy I can't get in touch with at all.

I have no point to argue here, except that I would include a brief mention of the versions splashing White or Red, as they are both equally strong and have also placed high in large tournaments.

Don't start pissing contests about decks that you think should appear beacause of personal feelings.  Hey if it's your deck and people don't test against it that's all the better for you right?

Frankly, I don't see the point of posting an article in this forum if it's not up for intelligent discussion. The whole goal of testing is to be prepared, so the more relevant decks you properly test against, the better prepared you should be. I hold no emotional attachment or bias to any deck, and am merely pointing out some decks you may want to include in your next revision. If you don't want to, I don't really give a damn, because while you can defend your work all you want (whether it be to an editor or to an audience), you're not really going to learn until you listen.

[Jacob Orlove]

 The whole goal of testing is to be prepared, so the more relevant decks you properly test against, the better prepared you should be.

This is the fundamental crux of your argument, and here's why it's wrong: People don't have infinite time to test. If we did, we'd certianly play against everything. Even if you have time to test your deck against everything in the format, you lose the chance to do intensive testing against matchups of particular concern. By narrowing the gauntlet to fewer decks, you can actually prepare better, because with intensive testing comes a greater understanding of how your deck performs against specific archetypes, rather than specific decks. This even helps you agains the inevitable rogue decks and extended/T2 ports that show up.

[bebe]

By narrowing the gauntlet to fewer decks, you can actually prepare better, because with intensive testing comes a greater understanding of how your deck performs against specific archetypes, rather than specific decks.

Looks good in theory doesn't it? Type 1 has so many arch types right now that this just no longer holds true in Canada and Europe. Maybe its okay for a regional metagame. Until we have a well defined UNIVERSAL metagame there are so many decks that can surprise you. I can look at any large venue in Europe and Canada and see a number of unexpected top eights. The danger of narrowing the gauntlet too, much is that you then tend to meta against specific decks. I totally misread the last large tournament i attended and was unable to deal with a number of decks that ' should not have done so well'. Razor designed O. Stompy with a little help from the crew and sure enough it beat Landstill, control and Fish. Trouble is it lost to a number of other decks and suddenly we all came prepared for it. The same happened with Tog. It does not win here so peopole stopped playing it. If it reappears it will probabaly do well as we stopped metagaming for it. I'm not sure JACO is entirely wrong at all.

[Samite Healer]

 The whole goal of testing is to be prepared, so the more relevant decks you properly test against, the better prepared you should be.

This is the fundamental crux of your argument, and here's why it's wrong: People don't have infinite time to test. If we did, we'd certianly play against everything.  By narrowing the gauntlet to fewer decks, you can actually prepare better, because with intensive testing comes a greater understanding of how your deck performs against specific archetypes, rather than specific decks. This even helps you agains the inevitable rogue decks and extended/T2 ports that show up.

I understand that narrowing the gauntlet is necessary for practical testing purposes; however, exactly which[/i] decks should be tested against is the individual's[/i] decision, and shouldn't be pre-decided in the posted gauntlet.

This gauntlet is just a player’s tool. I have designed it with the players in mind, and this reflects in the decks that I chose to include.

If this is truly a tool for the players, then this "gauntlet" should include many of the decks that have been left out, and the person looking at the gauntlet should decide what is relevant to test against because of their metagame.  To flat out exclude decks that HAVE done well on multiple continents (see JACO's post) creates a misleading gauntlet of decks that may lead less-active viewers (readers of the site) to believe that these are the ONLY viable decks in the metagame right now.

I tried to use every deck that you would expect to see at the top tables of any given tournament.

Obviously you haven't, or else some of the decks that have been exluded would be there. (Ex: Control Slaver)

Don't start pissing contests about decks that you think should appear beacause of personal feelings.

I don't that is anyone's concern here.  What is of concern here is that Kerz has multiple contradictory statements which basically say:

"The gauntlet was designed to include extremes, but that doesn't include Belcher or Broodstar."

"The gauntlet was designed to include all decks that post conisistent high results, and although Mad Dragon has had SIX top-eight finishes in under two months, it flat out sucks."

[The Atog Lord]

There appears to be quite a bit of discussion in which people are attmepting to define a universal list of decks which are to be tested against, to the exclusion of all others. This is often a good strategy in a format such as Block, in which the cardpool and ergo the metagame is by its nature very restricted. I’m not sure that this is as good an idea in Type One today, at least not on the universal level.

I am not sure that there can be a single, complete, world-wide list of decks which alone are worth testing against. Metagames fluctuate over time, and moreover vary by location. For example, while FCG has had an impact in many areas, it is not played as much yet in New England; as a New England player, I tend to be more concerned with control matchups than other players might be. Therefore, what would actually be an “optimal” list of decks agaisnt which to test will be a function of one’s location, at least to a degree.

That having been said, there is considerable value in this sort of discussion. By giving a detailed account of many top-performing decks, Kerz has done a service for the community. By adding to that account, other posters such as Samite are also providing useful insight.

[JACO]

 The whole goal of testing is to be prepared, so the more relevant decks you properly test against, the better prepared you should be.

This is the fundamental crux of your argument, and here's why it's wrong: People don't have infinite time to test. If we did, we'd certianly play against everything. Even if you have time to test your deck against everything in the format, you lose the chance to do intensive testing against matchups of particular concern. By narrowing the gauntlet to fewer decks, you can actually prepare better, because with intensive testing comes a greater understanding of how your deck performs against specific archetypes, rather than specific decks. This even helps you agains the inevitable rogue decks and extended/T2 ports that show up.

bebe picked up most of what I was going to say. By testing against fewer decks (and the logical extremes they present), you do NOT prepare better. It is an interesting theory, but it doesn't help you know exactly how you want to play your deck against 3 different Workshop variations, or even against different Psychatog variations. I don't know what kind of metagame the East Coast boys are playing in, but I can only assume a fairly narrow one, with a majority of blue based control. On the Left coast, in Europe, and up in Canada it seems to be much more wide open. I know in my local San Diego (i.e. little metagame), we allow unlimited proxies and see every deck on that list, plus the ones I presented, and more.

Once again, Jeff has hit the nail on the head:

I understand that narrowing the gauntlet is necessary for practical testing purposes; however, exactly which decks should be tested against is the individual's decision, and shouldn't be pre-decided in the posted gauntlet...
...To flat out exclude decks that HAVE done well on multiple continents (see JACO's post) creates a misleading gauntlet of decks that may lead less-active viewers (readers of the site) to believe that these are the ONLY viable decks in the metagame right now.

As I said, if you want to playtest against only a few decks because of time constraints, that is fine with me. I'm going to test against as much as possible, and be as prepared as possible for those decks you haven't tested against. Magic is like most other sports or competitive activities; the more you put into the game, the more you will get out of it.

[Kerz]

If anybody, Rich (TheAtogLord) has hit the nail of the head more vividly than anyone. I am completely done arguing about which decks to include, for the following reasons:

Peoples OBVIOUS BIAS towards their pet decks or decks that have created is always evident, skewing thier argument's credibility.

Type one, in nature, cannot, and most likely will not be a format with a 'world metagame'. There is simply too large a card pool, and too many bad players (Smmenen has pointed this out on multiple occasions) to keep a consistant 12-16 decks that are "the best in the world".

A prime example of a "World Metagame" not existing is Mad Dragon. This deck, while top eighting a few times in Europe, has NEVER done ANYTHING in America, at all. Its worse than dragon and worse than Maddness, but I REALLY don't want to get into it here. Check around for discussion on it.


In my article, I tried to keep the gauntlet to 12-16 decks for a reason. If I started including all of the tertiary decks that do NOT consisntantly place highly, the gauntlet would bulge to over 30 decks, and I would start talking anbout decks that maybe... had a random top eight here, or.. won one tournament there.. and there would be many decks that you can ignore when testing.


As Jacob Orlove has made clear on a few occasions in IRC and JP has posted here, you simply DO NOT need to test against many decks. People who are advocating this (im talking about adding in almost every deck that has ever shown any results) obviously do not psysically playtest. Instead of testing 20 games against Blue-Red fish or Belcher (both of which are absent from nearly every top eight), you can test 20 more games against the decks that are dominating top eights and winning tournaments every week (such as Tog or Slavery). Its all about priorities.

I've already explained why I havn't and will not include Broodstarrunner.dec in my gauntlet. When testing, you only need to test againt ONE workshop beats deck, as they all have enough similarities for it not to matter.

[Dr. Sylvan]

A prime example of a "World Metagame" not existing is Mad Dragon. This deck, while top eighting a few times in Europe, has NEVER done ANYTHING in America, at all. Its worse than dragon and worse than Maddness, but I REALLY don't want to get into it here. Check around for discussion on it.

I'm fine with your choice of a non-all-inclusive gauntlet, Aaron, but I'll chime in as "data man" and say this is somewhat incorrect: MadDragon came in fourth in Minneapolis this past weekend.

It's really hard to establish a gauntlet that is even close to perfect for people everywhere. Kerz has a good article here that's aiming to help people playtest smarter. Obviously each team has their own habits of testing, and their own metagame expectations. There is nothing wrong with this, and I don't see why we're gettin' all huffy about it. If anything, this article is targetted most at people who don't know precisely what's going on, whereas the most vocal critics in this thread are merely proving that they aren't part of that target audience by virtue of their own extensive knowledge.

So, um, do what works for you and don't get angry. (That's right. I'm your mother. Take that.)

[Smmenen]

Type one, in nature, cannot, and most likely will not be a format with a 'world metagame'. There is simply too large a card pool, and too many bad players (Smmenen has pointed this out on multiple occasions) to keep a consistant 12-16 decks that are "the best in the world".

A prime example of a "World Metagame" not existing is Mad Dragon. This deck, while top eighting a few times in Europe, has NEVER done ANYTHING in America, at all. Its worse than dragon and worse than Maddness, but I REALLY don't want to get into it here. Check around for discussion on it.

I hate to say it, but I think it is time for Americans to start paying less attention to European results.  The Dulmen metagame of one year ago (Gat won from Jan to June with the exception of the Stax deck in one of those months), is far less of a bellweather than it current appears to be.  

However, I'm not ready to subscribe to Waterbury results as the bellweather either as, in my opinion, the five proxy rule seriously screws things up.  Discriminating readers will need to decide what results they should be looking to and which results they should ignore.  We have gone beyond a Worldwide metagame, into what is essentially, four or five key regional metagames.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  

Steve Menendian

[Dante]

In my article, I tried to keep the gauntlet to 12-16 decks for a reason. If I started including all of the tertiary decks that do NOT consisntantly place highly, the gauntlet would bulge to over 30 decks, and I would start talking anbout decks that maybe... had a random top eight here, or.. won one tournament there.. and there would be many decks that you can ignore when testing.

this is a good point...I can see why you left things like belcher off.  Maddragon you have an obvious distaste for, in spite of it winning top 8 slots at 3 tournaments in the last month.....but that's another discussion like you said.

I feel that leaving Fish off (whether U/r, mono blue, U/w or U/g) however is a major error.  This deck is commonly played in MANY metagames and has top 8'd all over the place for months since GenCon.  I'll just point out 2 in SoCal, 1 in columbus, 1 in ontario, 1 in Minneapolis all within the last 4-5 weeks.  That's not even looking at Europe.....so I can see your point about belcher, mad dragon, etc.....but Fish is both widely played and top8s a lot, thus it would seem that leaving it off would be a detriment.

Bill

[Smmenen]

Fish is about to get alot better.  But only in metagames like Gencon and Origins.  It won't do very well at Waterbury, in part, because of the five proxy rule.

Steve

[Kerz]

Fish is about to get alot better. But only in metagames like Gencon and Origins. It won't do very well at Waterbury, in part, because of the five proxy rule.

This is why I havn't included it- Also, the deck hasn't posted any results in the Northeast in around 4 months. I'm not sure if I should have included it or not, I asked a few players and the general consensus was no, so I chose not to.

[Mykeatog]

Kerz, I think that you should put "Legend Ankh Sligh" in your gauntlet cause it has lightning bolt in it. And Um, Tog is good- but is it really better than suicide?

Honestly guys--- look at what you saying. If any of you actually want to do some work then do it, Kerz worked his ass off for this hot shit and it doesn't need to be fucked up- cause petdeck.deck didn't make the list. Seriously, 2 land WHAT? Mad who? 4 versions of Mask.deck? Can I get some GAT lists with four gush-- just for added satisfaction! Kerz is not trying to give you a deck list for every single deck ever played in a tournament, he is tyring to be relevant, if you want to test against Saga era Wildfire/ Land Destruction do it-- but keep it in the fucking newb forums.

[Eastman]

Kerz, I think that you should put "Legend Ankh Sligh" in your gauntlet cause it has lightning bolt in it. And Um, Tog is good- but is it really better than suicide?

Honestly guys--- look at what you saying. If any of you actually want to do some work then do it, Kerz worked his ass off for this hot shit and it doesn't need to be fucked up- cause petdeck.deck didn't make the list. Seriously, 2 land WHAT? Mad who? 4 versions of Mask.deck? Can I get some GAT lists with four gush-- just for added satisfaction! Kerz is not trying to give you a deck list for every single deck ever played in a tournament, he is tyring to be relevant, if you want to test against Saga era Wildfire/ Land Destruction do it-- but keep it in the fucking newb forums.

good to have you back Mike.