The definition of Meta?

[BreathWeapon]

I walked into a very long and annoying discussion on what the definition of "Meta" actually is. My friend defined it as "Any card that is solely reactive to the opponent's game plan with the exception of Counter Magic" (Because casting spells is an intrinsic part of the game). I took issue with the ascertion that any Purely Reactive card can be defined strictly as a meta card when they see such common usage; STP, Stifle, Nev Disk, Pernicious Deed, Damping Matrix, Null Rod etc. We came to a significant cross road when trying to classify Wasteland, despite being a card inserted into decks to deal with the opponent's access to mana, it can function by itself as a colorless mana source.

Would you guys mind posting your definitions of "Meta" to settle an argument between friends? Is the term purely an Existential perception of a cards role in a deck? Is it a widely excepted intuitive term? What is Meta?

[Zherbus]

Moved. It's basic content.[/color]

I'll see if I can find you a nice arguement settling link before someone answers this.

[riggy]

Under your friend's definition, cards like Chalice and Duress aren't a meta consideration. They're not reactive, they're proactive, but the count for each will vary depending on where you're at and what type of decks you expect to show up. A higher concentration of combo decks could mean more duresses showing up.

When people talk about a meta-game, they're talking about the types of decks that show up in a given locale at a given time. Following that, when people talk about a deck that's been meta-gamed, they're talking about a deck that has had cards added/subtracted/changed to it to make the deck stronger in that particular locale (at that time).

As such, I would go on to define "meta" as not a particular card, but rather the role you envision the cards taking when you put them in your deck. When you meta-game a deck, you're effectively trying to add/subtract cards to make it stronger versus the whole field of opponents' game plans, whether proactive or reactive.

As a curiosity, would your friend define a card that is "solely proactive" as a meta card? Cards such as Duress, Meddling Mage (ignoring his 2/2 beating body) and Chalice?

[rvs]

Meta is the balance between decks in the format. There are different types of Meta you can define. You can define a Global meta, which for T1, would mean  the tops decks are probably Tog and both Slaver-variants, and right after that comes Dragon, UG Madness and Draw7.dec.
There's also something like a local Meta. John likes to play Dragon. So does Richard. So does Peter. It affects choices made regarding sideboard, and often even the exact maindeck configuration.

What your friend calls Meta is actually just an Anti-card against the strategy of a deck that is common in his specific Meta. (Or Meta-game, as it is actually called).

Is this clear enough?

[bebe]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=1289

Perhaps this article will be of some help. Although you may choose to call a single card a metagame choice, it is also common to play a deck that is strong in your metagame. If i was seeing predominantly aggro decks i would call any combo deck a meta deck. As Morefling points out, cards or decks that will beat the most commonly seen decks in your area are meta choices.
Toronto is particularly bad as an area to meta your deck choice as we see such a wide variety of decks that metagaming is really quite difficult. I played combo at Vinatge championships thinking that control was sliding out of the meta and saw only control decks while the winner with Dragon drew one the whole day.

[Ric_Flair]

Meta=Greek for before or prior.  

This is actually helpful when defining what is going on.  Knowledge of the metagame gives you strategic knowledge of what you must do BEFORE you play.  Metagame knowledge is the non-card based or rule based strategies that result from playing the game.  For example, no card trick or combination of cards tells you what is a good match up.  No rules tell you this.  Only the metagame does.  This external game knowledge is what I believe to properly be defined as metagame knowledge.

The idea that Null Rod is a metagame choice for Slaver is not a completely proper use of the term.  Null Rod is more of a foil for Slaver.  But playing a deck RUNNING Null Rod MD because of your knowledge that there is likely to be a field of Slaver decks, is a metagame play.  A subtle but sometimes important distinction.

[BreathWeapon]

Thanks for the input and the link, it definately helped us bring the argument to a close. Its funny sometimes how much people can disagree over the most mundane terms ... too bad we don't have a dictionary of Magic slang