To begin, this is not a discussion as to the basic decks that exist and how to run/beat them. Rather, it is about the broad generalzations that have shaped the meta that we now abide by. With this in mind, my hope is to throw out some of the basic trends that follow and to generate discussion as to whether or not these are valid and how to beat these assumptions.
Assumptions:
1: Decks have become much faster
2: Decks have become more resilient
3. Focused game plan
Explanation of Assumptions:
1. Decks have become much faster
It is obvious that the majority of decks now have become much faster. Combo decks now are looking to win, turn 1-2 goldfish (turn 3-4 is more realistic in tournament play due to resiliency issues) like Belcher or long or are a bit slower but plan on winning consistently through hate turns 3-4 (like dragon). Similarly, decks such as Oath, Gifts, and even stax are said to "win" by turn 3-4 even though the game may actually end a few turns later. This is a huge difference from decks such as "the deck" in which the game was merely controlled for a long time with the "win" being determined later in the game as absolute control was obtained. In otherwords, the trend is that decks have become much more aggressive in nature preferring to use proactive solutions rather than reactive ones. Generally, this takes the form of huge threats that must be dealt with = pressure/aggression orcards such as duress which aggressively attacks the hand of the opponent (trading one card that is unimportant for their threat while giving important knowledge) = aggressive. Even cards such as mana drain have begun to be used more proactively (while still useful to stop a huge threat) in terms of countering something for the purpose of obtaining mana (the fact that the card is important is less of a factor now than it used to be hence the reason this card is not held as long as it once was).
2. Decks have become more resilient
Decks can have resiliency in three main categories:
A. They can have a bunch of search/draw cards which allow the required cards to be found
B. They can use a lot of cards that perform similar functions. Ex. stax uses a lot of cards that affect the board differently but with certain key areas being hit. Null rod, trini, crucible, sphere of resistance all attempt to hit the mana base while tangle wire, chalice, and smokestax hit a wider range of cards yet often affect the mana base as well. Thus, regardless of which card you draw, the same game plan is being pushed forward (even if slight variances must be made in overall strategy and matchup).
C. Decks can have a lot of random cards that fulfill the main focus of the deck but don’t necessarily perform an action that directly affects the opponent. This section tends to be closely linked with the second. However, I believe that decks such as fish and aggro tend to fill this slot more so than stax does. For example, fish has a lot of cards that are disruption oriented but do not necessarily disrupt the opponent in the same way. Additionally, with the increase in creatures, while specific creatures like Ninja perform certain key roles, the focus is to apply pressure under this disruption so specific cards are less needed. Generally, these decks have a lot less draw/search and game play/stategy/focus is more specific to the cards drawn (though the choices may be less complex) than many other decks.
3. Focused game plan:
It is always good to have a specific game plan when playing a deck. However, many decks have become so incredibly focused that they have only 2-3 win conditions in the entire deck. While this does not mean everyone should start playing Jester's cap or that every deck fits this rule, it still is something to be aware of. When magic was new, and creatures ruled the land, every creature and thus a third of the deck was a threat. Now, there may be 2 tendril's in the deck and 10 ways of finding it. This is important to note as this can cause resiliency issues since many of the "search" methods are also used to deal with hate thereby decreasing actual win options and increasing flexibility.
Analysis of Assumptions:
1. The faster clock has put a real strain on new deck construction in terms of trying to balance resiliency issues with pressure. One of the main reasons combo/control does so well, and the reason that few win conditions are being used, is that what is needed to win is mana. Thus, a delay of the game is required which allows aggression to be applied in terms of duress and mana drain. Thus, the game plan is pretty simple, turn one duress, turn two draw/search, turn three win. Or, one could go turn one BS, turn two mana drain, turn three win. Yet, although exceedingly successful this seems to be theoretically imperfect in that the win condition is susceptible to hate. This rarely is seen due to the fast clock and the amount of disruption that exists but is none the less a factor. The reason this causes a problem for new deck construction is because as one tries to make a more resilient deck by including more win conditions then two things happen.
A. there are more cards that can be disrupted
B. the issue of what to play for the first few turns becomes a problem. either the player must play a card that is important to win or the player must play disruption to stop the opponent from winning. (one of the decks that combines these two is stax is the method of winning is pretty much disruption). Thus, more resilient decks tend to be clogged as their game plan is less focused.
2. With decks becoming faster, game play tends to be much more tight. While decks such as dragon can overkill an opponent, typically the standard is to merely win. As such, a term often used when deciding on whether to cut a card from a deck is whether or not it is necessary or if it is merely a "win more" card. Additionally, because of this philosophy, many decks that were once considered powerful combo decks or decks that could be constructed and goldfish well are shied away from because they take longer to set up (which causes clog as i stated earlier). As a result, decks either must win quickly/efficiently through hate or establish a fine balance of control that can stop a deck from "going off" (ex. fish) while applying a slower but still quick clock.
3. Cards that are not proactive are relatively useless. Because of the amount of direct threats that exist, it is too inconsistent to hold onto cards giving the opponent chances to draw into more bombs and increasing the likelihood that you will not draw a reactive solution. In other words, while this strategy can be successful, you must take chances that mean if you guess wrong you waste turns (holding onto mana instead of casting a spell so that you can counter something when they had nothing and thus had to draw) while proactive solutions nearly always disrupt and thus gives this strategy an advantage over a reactive strategy.
4. Because decks are more focused, they can easily be hated out. The only reason the meta is feasible is because there is a diverse array of decks that win through different means. Thus, one must either develop a new means of winning “animal farm as ex”, vastly improve an established archetype, or find a way of destroying almost every deck through hate (stax meets “the deck”).
In summary, I believe that what Smmenen says in the Gifts empty the warrens and winning small post is incredibly important to deck building:
In short, I think we are often blinded by what Harv Law Professor Roberto Unger calls "False Necessity" - the sense that what is (what exists right now) - is the result of historical inevitability rather than historical contingency.
Thus, I hope that this discussion reveals more assumptions, questions the assumptions already made, and helps generate suggestions on beating the meta that have been thoroughly thought out.
