[Article] Playing Meandeck Tendrils

[Jacob Orlove]

Playing Meandeck Tendrils

Don't worry, it's not premium. Props to Justin once again for such a great article.

[Moxlotus]

Did all of Meandeck have to check themselves into a mental institution after playing this deck at a tournament?  Seriously.  This article was wonderfully laid out with the 2 hand types and explained very well.  Thank you for writing this article.  Screw you for making this monstrocity

[Smmenen]

I'm not sure I could have done as good a job at explaining how to play it, and I know it would have been less entertaining.  Great job.  I TOLD all of you who read my parts that this was not to be missed.   This should be the cornerstone reference on how to play the deck.

[nataz]

I was impressed. Entertaining enough to keep me reading, but also containing real depth with your fundamental deck strategies, so I didn't feel like I was wasting my time.

[the Luke]

Great article, especially the advice on how best to FoW the deck into submission.

One very minor criticism: be consistent with male/female pronouns.  I understand giving respect to the female gender, but the inconsistency made it interrupt an otherwise very fluent read.

Please write more.

-Luke

[Saucemaster]

Thanks for the compliments.  I'm actually purposefully inconsistent with the gender of my pronouns, so long as they're in separate paragraphs or parenthetical asides.  I realize that it breaks up the flow a little bit, but I think it breaks it up less than s/he, his/her, and all the rest, and I'd feel like I was snubbing one of my own teammates if I didn't use female pronouns.  And obviously, not using male pronouns just flies right in the face of the sad fact of the game.  I'll take it into consideration, though--certainly if I can find a way to get away with the plural, I'll do so.

EDIT: Oh, and I said this in the SCG forums, but to repeat: if I hadn't submitted this before Flores' article on The Limits of Interactivity had gone up, I'd have recast the whole "fundamental problem" section in light of that article, which describes precisely what I think held the deck back.

[Vegeta2711]

Even though I said it in IRC, I'll say it again anyways. It was a good read and more intresting than you gave it credit for.

[Demonic Attorney]

Just a quick suggestion, Saucemaster:


I've had trouble with how to balance gendered pronouns in my own writing, as well.  Like you, I try to avoid s/he, him/her, or the like because I don't want to seem like I'm going out of my way to accede to the demands of the politically-correct mafia.  I struck a compromise by using "them"/"their" instead.  I realize standard English usage of these pronouns implies plurality, and this limits the contexts in which they can be correctly included.  However, I don't think it's overly egregious to say, "A Meandeck Tendrils player often has little impact on the outcome of the game itself.  Their play decisions, while important in that a misplay would cost them the game, are secondary to the quality of the opening hands drawn by Meandeck Tendrils and the opposition."

While that's technically an incorrect usage of "their" since the referent noun is singular, it doesn't sound excessively unpalatable.  Just a small suggestion.

Oh, and I loved the article.  Very well put-together.

[Saucemaster]

Personally, I've always been a fan of "their" as a gender-neutral pronoun to apply in pretty much any case, but editors typically aren't, since it *is* incorrect, after all.  As for "the politically-correct mafia", I'm more likely to be one than to be annoyed by one, though we all have our moments.  I don't care whether it comes off PC, I just care whether it's distracting and draws attention to itself.  All the solutions end up becoming distracting, simply because English is not built to accomodate gender neutrality in singular pronouns.  The plural sounds strange because it doesn't agree with the verb, his/her is annoying (though actually I'm kind of a fan of s/he), and switching pronouns is fine if it goes unnoticed, but very odd once it is noticed.  Maybe I'll mix it up in future articles.  Or just say that for the sake of the article, my mythical opponent will be a dog, and I'll refer to it as... it.

[racetraitor]

Which would be just as spiecist as the above is sexist...

Anyway the article was interesting enough not to make you stop and think "Hey I'm never gonna play this deck anyway so why bother". Just the right amount of humor and play-by-plays too. Congrats on a jorb well done.

[Azhrei]

"He" is both masculine and neuter in English. Cope.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Well, after reading this much text from Justin, I feel an overwhelming urge to buy an iBook, start hanging out in coffee shops, and read something by David Hume. I should probably study abroad in Andorra, too, just to be safe. :-D

I was enlightened, and much more than I expected to be considering that I am the worst Tendrils of Agony player on this side of the grave. Justin, I'm convinced that if you have more things to write about, there's an audience for you to seize.

[Smmenen]

"He" is both masculine and neuter in English. Cope.

Ahhh.  That's why we love you.  And people say I'm the new Azhrei.  Notice: I agree with Justin and prefer his use of pronouns.

[Saucemaster]

"He" is both masculine and neuter in English. Cope.

A two-sentence post that takes question-begging to new heights.  My, how the mighty have fallen.  You realize that the fact that the masculine is also the neuter is exactly the problem, right?

I feel an overwhelming urge to buy an iBook, start hanging out in coffee shops, and read something by David Hume.

I use a PC, because I can't have nearly as much fun shooting things on an iBook.  I frequent coffee shops when I'm actually buying coffee, but I never hang out.  And I've done my share of Hume, but at some point there's nothing more you can get out of him.  Andorra, though, that sounds pretty fresh.  Thanks for the props, Dr. S.

[Godder]

A friend of mine did a B.A. in English, and it was one of the university English department's essay requirements that 'they' and 'their' be used as neuter pronouns. Clearly, the times are changing.

[Revvik]

I like puppies, and having fun.

Great read, Saucemaster, that was a wonderful way to look at what could otherwise be interpreted as a "pile of stupid cards," and interpret it instead into a killing machine, even if it was at an expense to mental health.

P.S. If you can't take a joke, pretend my first paragraph said "I like puppies, and having fun."  Or something bland like that.
Fixed.

[Azhrei]

"He" is both masculine and neuter in English. Cope.

A two-sentence post that takes question-begging to new heights.  My, how the mighty have fallen.  You realize that the fact that the masculine is also the neuter is exactly the problem, right?

English simply doesn't have a different word. We only have small vestiges of assigning gender to words at all.

Furthermore, to "beg the question" is to take for granted the truth of the very thing being questioned, or to assume the answer to an unstated premise. It is, in fact, true that "he" is both masculine and neuter in English, and that no grammatically acceptable or linguistically precise alternative exists. Problematic or not, that is the language you speak.

[Saucemaster]

Premise: Using the masculine in neuter cases may be gramatically correct, but it's problematic.
Question: Is there an easy way to avoid this without causing serious disruption to the flow of the piece in question?
Your (original) answer, edited to sound more chipper: Sure! Use the masculine in neuter cases.  It's gramatically correct!

...To "beg the question" is to take for granted the truth of the very thing being questioned, or to assume the answer to an unstated premise.

Your hand was out and you were slumming for change, man.

Your second post got closer, though, by stating that "no grammatically acceptable or linguistically precise alternative exists".  That actually answers the question, with a simple "no".  Not particularly helpful, but at least it doesn't beg the question.

How in the world did this thread float away like this?

@ Everyone: So, at the urging of Ted Knutson and much of the TMD populace, I'm going to try to start writing more.  Is there any particular type of article you think is lacking in Vintage?  Something you'd like to see more of?  I'm sure as hell not writing an article on restriction, but I've been thinking about a matchup analysis article like the ones Smmenen did back in the day.  If I did one, what matchups would you find particularly interesting?  Any other types of articles people want to see?

[Azhrei]

I'd argue that the unstated premise was "is there a problem with the gender neuter being the same as the masculine?" Several people were assuming so, and trying to solve the "problem". I simply said there was no problem to solve.

My unstated premise is that many people are sensitive about things that are immaterial and tend not to worry about things like pollution or obesity.

See, we tied it  back to Magic after all!  

[Saucemaster]

I'd argue that the unstated premise was "is there a problem with the gender neuter being the same as the masculine?" Several people were assuming so, and trying to solve the "problem". I simply said there was no problem to solve.

My unstated premise is that many people are sensitive about things that are immaterial and tend not to worry about things like pollution or obesity.

See, we tied it  back to Magic after all!  

Unfortunately, I am forced to admit that, in that light, your response makes sense.    I take the fact that it's a "problem" for granted, simply because in cases like this, I think the perception of a problem actually constitutes the problem.  Personally, I'm sticking with my dog solution.

Seriously, though, I've never seen why I can't just switch up the gender, if the gendered subject occurs in distinct situations.  For example: I start with Example A, how to tendrils Trisha for twenty after she taps to attack.  In the next paragraph, I use Example B, how to crucify Craig while he cavorts with counters.  It's inclusive, it's specific, it's alliterative.  What's not to love?

[Smmenen]

I, personally, do not consider "he" or "his" to refer to a person of unknown gender.  I don't consider the language we use to be immaterial.  The language we use frames the debate in subtle and unconscious ways.  It constrains how we think and the terms in which we think.   The way we think is just as important as how we act.  So I don't considerr it immaterial.

[Godder]

What constitutes 'grammatically correct' is essentially whatever the populace will accept in formal writing. If one uses 'they' as a neuter, singular pronoun, and people are willing to accept it as such, and use it as such, then it becomes grammatically correct, regardless of what some people try to tell one.

This also applies to the definition of words. Dictionaries are revised to recognise how people actually use words, not how they should use words. 'Good', for example, now has an adverbial function i.e. "I feel good", regardless of centuries of using 'well' in that particular phrase. Correct or not, the English language evolves over time, and has done for centuries.

[LotusHead]

The "Playing Meandeck Tendrils" article was pretty cool.  It was even free.

I have goldfished with it on Apprentice many a time.

The last few posts were all about something like He/She or something, but to get the topic back on track...

Has Meandeck Tendrils done ANYTHING?

I truly respect the design of the deck in the Mathematical Statistical Facts of the deck, but... against a real opponent? With Force of Will?

Has this deck done ANYTHING to make it something to be worried about?

I've played against Long.dec twice ever, and it got me pissed off to no end for WEEKS before I realized just how beautiful Vintage Magic is: Hate stuff out, Play something better, or Go Rogue (I play Salvagers, in Oath form at the moment).

My experience goldfishing with Meandeck Tendrils has shown me this (with no opponent): Either you get $600 or more in your oppening hand, or have black mana, Yawgmoth's Will and a Dark Ritual, or you don't.

I know that this doesn't say much, as I only goldfished on Apprentice, but is ANYONE able to Pilot this "by the numbers" through an actual say, 4 round tourney, for the win?

Has Meandeck Tendrils proved itself at all, in real life?

I follow TMD daily, and SCG.com etc, and I don't see evidence of it doing ANYTHING other than inspiring "what if this deck didn't force you to mulligan 40% of the time" kind of discussion.

[kirdape3]

Justin won a Ruby at the Waterbury tournament where it was introduced.

[Azhrei]

So the answer seems to be "Um, sometimes?"



Doesn't matter anyway; something will come out in a set or two that will just make this deck erupt o'er the land like a plague of locusts, like a one mana artifact that does something like "discard a card: draw a card." Then WotC will say "It's not card advantage, it's card quality and therefore balanced" and refuse to ban the damn thing.  

[Saucemaster]

I know that this doesn't say much, as I only goldfished on Apprentice, but is ANYONE able to Pilot this "by the numbers" through an actual say, 4 round tourney, for the win?

I piloted it through an eight-round swiss and ensuing Top 16 at Waterbury to split for 3rd/4th place.  For some reason--possibly because Ray, who is the second coming of Jesus Christ for the Magic-playing world, had over 200 decklists to deal with, and a million other things to do--it was listed in some early Waterbury results as "Meandeck TPS".  That might have thrown you off, since obviously the deck has almost nothing in common with TPS besides Dark Ritual and Tendrils of Agony.

If you're asking, "Should I prepare for this deck when I sideboard?", then I can't really help you there.  If you think someone's going to play it, you need some sort of combo hate to capitalize on the two- or three-turn respite that Force/Duress/Drain (pick two) give you.  Arcane Lab, Tinker/Platinum Angel, Trinisphere, hell, Orim's Chant on a stick would do it.  If you don't have anything, countermagic probably won't save you for long enough to allow you to win.

If you're asking, "Should I play this deck?", then I'd say a four-round tourney like you mentioned above would probably be the only type of tournament in which I'd play it.  You'd need to learn the deck inside and out, and not get terribly unlucky.  That's your choice, but for what it's worth, I wouldn't play it again even in a four-round tournament unless I was just goofing around and wanted a challenge.