[Article] "The Deck" History, August-December 2003

[rakso]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6599

It's another year, and the legendary "The Deck" creator (see Brian David-Marshall, "Three Takes on Type I") sent in what he's working on for the archetype's ninth year of existence:

[Eastman]

All due respect to them both, as their writings taught me many of my early lessons, but Oscar and Brian both seem to be completely out of touch with today's vintage meta. Brian's experience playing against an outdated rector-trix deck is laughable and would be edited or deleted if posted in the basic user forum here.

Is there some part of this article that I have not seen, something I have misperceived that leads to this analysis? If I am mistaken in some way, please correct me.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I didn't see anything in the article to indicate Oscar is "out of touch". Weissman clearly is, with the Rector comment, though (zero showed up in January T8s). Weissman's wisdom should be taken with a grain of salt, but Oscar is discussing legitimate recent test cards for Keeper, and citing very credible builds. He didn't even mention his own restriction opinions, merely included a correspondence with Weissman. I enjoyed the article.

[rozetta]

I agree, Weissman's comment about restricting Academy Rector was, well, a little behind the times. I also enjoyed this article, since it's been a long time since we've seen an article from Oscar about specific card choices in Keeper (those are the articles I enjoy the most).

Also, it was very interesting to see the great variety between builds these days (maybe even more variety than builds this time last year). The Eternal Dragon build was pretty interesting, since I heard noises a little while ago about people trying Standstill in Keeper, but never really saw any concrete lists. Looks interesting.

[Ric_Flair]

I actually sent an email to BDM about how ridiculous the column was and he was nice about it.  Dumb response, but nice.  Basically he said that he did not think that the "average reader" of his column would care/understand the complexities of the Vintage metagame.  He also said that his purported experts won regularly at the NG tournaments.  I just don't buy either of these statements.  People aren't interested because they don't know.  If he gave them something tantilizingly good, something that showed the unique draw of the format, then more people would be interested.  It is kinda like a car salesman sitting in his office waiting for people to walk in, and lo and behold, when no one does, he throws up his hands and says: "No one wants a new car."  Give people something they can latch on to about the format and they will be interested.  The comment about "they win around here" is absurd.  I could go to Wyoming and win there...that does not say much.

Okay, I am not sure if this is kosher or not, but here goes:

I do not think that this column, or any of Oscar's recent columns (barring the back to basics stuff, which I guess is useful to newbies) have been useful, up to date, or on point.  If they are aimed at the novice, they are too complex.  Novices do not play Keeper.  Furthermore, novices are not likely to have the cards necessary to play Keeper.  Finally, I am not sure that some of the card descriptions are even at a novice level.  Duress for example:

Duress
A Duress in the opening hand was a tempo-efficient stopgap for that crucial window before you had the mana to Mana Drain, and having both Duress and Force of Will in your opening hand was a good way to survive.

However, a deck that aimed to dominate the mid- and late game had a love-hate relationship with a card that was largely useless after the first turns, and for opening disruption, it was soon superseded by Chalice of the Void.

First off, the use of jargon does not dress up what is basically being said.  "Duress is a pro active one mana counterspell."  Thanks, everyone who has played the card even once knew that.  Second, Chalice is not used anymore.  I think this comment is indicative of the entire column's recent slipage.  The comments are generalized, based on a non-existent metagame, and are out of date.

From my perspective it seems like Oscar is just summarizing what TMD forums said two months ago and putting out there.  Here are the comments about Decree of Justice:

Put simply, Decree is now the kill card of choice and the decks that don't run two run three. It cycles early, which is even more flexible than Morphling's pitch to Force of Will, and it can even take a weenie or two with it. Later on, it can make more than five power of creature, resulting in a faster clock. And most of all, it's instant and counterable only by Stifle, making it easiest kill to protect to date. (As a side effect, it also happens to up the permanent count against Smokestack and Tangle Wire.)

It is not plagarism, but is certainly nothing new.  So if the column is not for newbies and everything that is said is stuff we all knew about all ready who is it written for?  What is its audience?

Finally, I like the "celebrity guest appearances" of Weissman and the like, but Weissman is starting to sound like he belongs in the Magic Old Folks Home.  Rector does not need to be restricted.  Then he posts a decklist that he has never played.  I don't mean to disrespect my elders, but this does not cut in the newbie forum here.  It should not make it into an Oscar Tan article.   I like hearing from Weissman because he was a good player and had good ideas, not because he is Brian Weissman.  Now if Sarah Michelle Gellar had some deck building advice I would listen (well, listen is a generous term for what I would be doing) because of who was talking, regardless of what she said, but not for Brian Weissman.  TECH PLEASE.

I post this not to flame anyone.  I do not dislike Oscar or his column.  Really, I promise.  I write as a fan of the column.  I write to plead with Oscar: go back to writing good columns.  Your an excellent writer and you used have a handle on the format.  I started playing again because of your column.  The stuff we have been getting recently has not been up to snuff.  If it were material from a lesser writer it would be great, but from you, it is not even par for the course.

[MolotDET]

I would like to point out something here.

the title of this article is "The Deck" History, August-December 2003

Some of the posts here can be contributed to Oscar-bashing.  Now as this has been a common trend on these boards for quite some time, I am not in a position to discourage this but...

THE ARTICLE HAS THE WORD "HISTORY" IN ITS TITLE!!

This is ment to be an out of date piece.  Kind of like someone elses 2003 Meta-game summery type article.

If you are going to make fun, make sense.  And, don't leave yourself open for someone like myself to come and make you feel stupid afterwards.

Mo.

[Dr. Sylvan]

This is ment to be an out of date piece.  Kind of like [Dr. Sylvan's] 2003 Meta-game summery type article.

In case this was citing me for "bashing", I believe I would count my post as "pro-Oscar". Especially the part where I say he's in touch with the format and giving legitimate options to his legions of SCG readers. :)

Tony: Molot has a point.

[Eastman]

If you are going to make fun, make sense.  And, don't leave yourself open for someone like myself to come and make you feel stupid afterwards.

Mo.

I'm not concerned.

I have the utmost respect for Oscar, as I believe Ric does. As I said earlier, Oscar's articles were invaluable to me when I was a beginner in this format.

[Ric_Flair]

First off, as Eastman said, I do have great respect for Oscar.  I stated above that Oscar's writing is what got me to come back to Vintage in the first place.  

Second, if you look carefully, you will see that only one of my critical points had to do with the "newness" of Oscar's content.   Looking back over my post I count three major criticisms: 1) the article was not useful; 2) the article was not up to date; and 3) the article was not on point, that is it lacked a tight focus and relevant content.

Since there was some confusion, I will specify what I meant.  First, I realize that this was a "history" piece.  But it was neither as well documented as Dr. Sylvan's piece nor as in touch with the format as Steve's piece or Carl's piece.  So even as a history article it struck me as a bit dated and unsupported.  

This leads me into my second point, that the article was not useful.  Utility in writing comes from clarity of expression and knowing one's audience.  Oscar has proven time and again that he can do both of these things very well.  This latest piece was also clear.  It was, however, missing a solid conception of audience.  Keeper is an advanced deck, to say the least.  But it is Oscar's pet deck, so he chooses to write about it.  Now I see the readership of Star City divided roughly like this, based on the feedback that I have gotten:  1) casual players that know something about the game; 2) newbies; and 3) serious players that know something about the game.  Group 1 has little use in reading hard core strategy articles, so the article is clearly not written expressly for them.  Group 2 has neither the understanding nor the resources to play Keeper, or even Vintage itself, so clearly the article is not expressly written for them.  This leaves Group 3, which includes most of us.  Now within this group there may be sub groups like serious Vintage players and serious Pro format players (people that play only those formats on the Pro Tour).  If the article is written to appeal to subgroup 1 it misses its target because all of Oscar's tech is old and has been written about here with a great deal of depth and timeliness.  Thus, they gain nothing from reading the article and as such it is not useful for them.  This leaves subgroup 2, Pro format players.  Now it is very likely that this is the group that Oscar is appealing to, or trying to appeal to.  This is the group I was in when he appealed to me.  They know little to nothing about TMD or the stuff that was written here that Oscar is recapping.  So for them, this article was intended to be a "Here's what's happening in Vintage" piece, but even at this level, Oscar fails.  There is little content that even those not familiar with the format would be excited to read.  The comment I quoted about Duress is perhaps the most emblematic of the problem.  Oscar's normally insightful comments have fallen to quippy one liners that new writers use to fill up space.  We all know what Duress does.  So do Pro format players.  There is no reason to talk about it the way Oscar did.  This is in contradistiction to the way that Steve discussed Duress in both his year end wrap up and the Hulk v. TNT match up.  In those two pieces Steve talked about how Duress is used.  According to Steve, if the deck is trying to win quickly a configuration of 3 Duress is very good.  If however, the deck is trying to control the game for a long term win, Duress's punch through power is not enough so a 1 Twist, 2 Duress configuration is perferred.  This is useful analysis, something that Pro format players might not understand about Vintage's metagame.  This is USEFUL to all groups that could read the article.  

This leads me to my last point, the relevancy of the article.  Now, it is nice to see messages from Weissman and the like every once and a while, but the fact is that Weissman, at least insofar as the ideas he shares with Oscar are concerned, is no longer a good source of tech.  The list he posted was without testing, his comments about Rector are laughably wrong (right now), and the general lack of focus in his deck deliteriously affects the impact of the article.  Oscar should not publish stuff like this with the intro that he gave it.  His claim that the inventor of the deck was proffering a new list was, in my mind, an effort to confer upon Brian's comments some sense of importance.  But they were so far from the current edge of thought and tech that they were a waste of space.  Traditionally Oscar's celeb appearances have been very good.  His comments from Kathy Nicoloff a few articles ago, even though ancient in Magic age, were highly relevant and meaningful to the article and the state of the game.  Weissman's comments were the opposite.  And they deserve no attention whatsoever.   History and quoting historical figures is one thing, but Weissman's comments were the Magic equivalent of the non-sensical, senile rantings of a WWI veteran as recorded by a student of history.  

So in the end, I understand his purpose.  I just think that the article is below the quality that Oscar is capable of and below the quality of the articles other people in the Vintage community are posting.  I was trying to convey to him a sense of where I think he has gone wrong.  I also believe that I am not the only person who believes this.  Furthermore, I understand the problems of challenging an institution, but I believe that institutions should get respect only when they earn it.  Forums like TMD and the Magic community as a whole should strive towards being a meritocracy.  We have easy ways of evaluating people's performances, how the write, how much they win.  As such we should not let reputation cloud our assessment of individuals.  

Oscar is one the best writers in the game.  At his best I would certainly put him in the same league as Flores, Wakefield, and Kai.  He has displayed not only an excellent understanding of the format and the game, but good writing ability as well.  He is witty and insightful.  However, in recent months, this trademark style has evaporated.  I write this to respond to criticisms of me and to spur Oscar on.  I DO NOT write this as a personal attack, in any way.  If it is taken as such it is my fault and I bear the burden of correcting misleading language.  I hope that this second post does that.  If not feel free to comment on where I step out of line.

[Smmenen]

Interesting assessment on the state of Type One writing.

I have several goals which drive my writing.  The first and probably overriding goal is to discuss serious Type One strategy in a highly competitive way.  One of the best ways to do this was to discuss decks on a quarterly basis as I did with GroAtog, Stax, and Mask.  The problem with this approach is that it doesn't really serve my goal to the full extent possible.

One other goal is to be popular.  I'm chronically insecure about my popularity. I realize that as I specialize I'll be writing to an increasingly small niche of readers.  But I know there are serious Type One players who don't even read the internet much, let alone my pieces which are aimed at them.  How do I correct that?  I am not sure.  

I'm always trying to improve what I do, and I feel like I am getting less and less feedback.  With more writers out there then when I began, I feel like my specialty: which is matchup analysis and format strategy is increasingly the field in which I am able to play without interruption.  

I want to continue with my Matchup Series.  But with so few responses about what people want to see, I feel like I run the risk of writing for myself - of being, for lack of a better term, irrelevant to the reading of serious type one players.  

What do people want???

I have recently been hired to post "issue" questions on the front of SCG every day and I almost feel that I can do more good posting one question a day than I can in writing articles at all.  The format feels so incoherent and under-tested at the moment that I am somewhat ashamed.  But the problem is that this makes writing a more difficult endeavor.  Right now my plan is to do Tog. v. Spoils Mask for a Matchup Series, but I might just postpone that series subsequently unless I get feedback on some matches people really want to see.


Steve

[bebe]

Smmenen, I enjoy your articles. However,  

I have some problems.

You seem to equate serious with current arch types and tend to overlook what may be the next wave of competitive decks. Once a deck is established and you discuss it, it is already lagging behind the meta. For instance Razor and J-Orlove worked on O.Stompy and GPR in two different metas without any fanfare until they began to win. We have already solved O. Stompy's and unless it adjusts it will not win. We played Dragon here early and quickly the meta shifted to hate it out. Ditto with Landstill. Aggro is now the new deck to beat. If a dominant aggro build emerges ( possibly FCG or another) it too will have a short lifespan as we adjust. Belcher is also reraring its head and I do not believe Affinity unplayable in Type 1. The builds we have seen don't do it justice.

Let's see match ups that try and pit an emerging deck against a deck that is already established. This requires some research but looking through the lists of the big tournaments there is usually a deck or two that is being tested.

The idea of a coherent metagame is nice but how realistic that is today is somewhat debatable. As new powerful cards are created the choices widen as to what may be a good deck for a particular tournament. A discussion on what to play if expecting this or that with a match analysis would be of interest as well.

[Smmenen]

What you are asking for is not really feasible for several reasons.  First, if there is an emerging tech deck, unlike popularizing it as I used to with GAT, for instance, before most people had heard of it, I tend to hoard tech.  When meandeck discoverd Slavery, I mentioned it by name on the mana drain, but it was a full two months before Toad published the article.

Likelwise, I generally try and keep my best decks Sekrit until a tournament.   What I want to do is NOT inform people of a new deck, but to sort of "concretize" information that can be referenced.

Any suggestions?

Steve

[Azhrei]

I think there's no good reason to have articles be fully current or forward looking-- in fact, there are several good reasons not to be, first and foremost having the goal of winning.

Magic, and any competitive endeavor really, has always been about analyzing and cataloguing new ideas after they have been proven effective. People will not write about their innovations, but they will write about things that are no longer a surprise.

I see no reason to expect anyone to give away a trick before it pays off for them. That's the nature of the game, boys, so you may as well get used to it.

[bebe]

Well, I can think of a number oif reasons why I would want to read an article that is forward looking or current. One does not have to divulge a deck list necessarily - although that would be nice -  but even noting the trend towards new cards or new arch types is useful. I suggested the gleaning the tournament results for already published lists for emerging decks that are clearly not fully optimized - I gave a few examples.
I understand that all the tricks are not going to be divulged and that is fine as one shoulkd not net deck anything in its entirety as metas and testing will require adjustments anyway. I feel this a battle I will ose though.

[Zherbus]

This is the reason I write in spurts. If I feel the community could benefit from a Primer, then I work on one. If I feel that people could benefit from seeing a build that I can't use until it gets changed anyway, then I post it. I think Smmenen does the same thing to a point, but with the pressure to always be writing (which I love that I do not have) from StarCity, I can see how sometimes you are forced to just sort of... come up with something.

Personally, instead of stretching to come up with material I'd come up with some semi off-topic stuff to write about, like JP's Darksteel review. It's not all that techy and relevant, but one hell of a read regardless. If lacking an entertaining personality is an issue, then why are you writing?

[Dr. Sylvan]

If lacking an entertaining personality is an issue, then why are you writing?

For the chicks, obviously. They get really into it when I start expounding on the percentage of all white spells played comprised by Decree of Justice (January: 20.29%, for the curious).

Personally, the pressure to write weekly has helped me a lot. I don't think I would come up with as many ideas if I wasn't in the mindset that there are people interested to see them and expecting me to continue producing. Since the only obstacle is my procrastination, it's good to have deadlines that force me to finish projects. I can also understand Zherbus' perspective, though, because having a real job as well as a life is vastly different from being in fifteen hours of class per week. There aren't many regular Magic writers with full time jobs (well, except MaRo).

[Zherbus]

To be fair Dr. Sylvan, the difference between you (and Smmenen for that matter) and Rakso is that he's run out of freshness and you're still pretty new at it. I think there comes a time when you've burnt yourself out or just plain DON'T have the time to devote to the game that you used to. At which point you need to take a break, temporary or permanent.