The Lure of Metagame Decks

[Smmenen]

If the best deck isn't the best performing deck, how do you know it's the best deck?  

GW Beats is not a Fish deck.

If you say so.

Um, so you are trying to show that Fish is more metagame flexible by saying that The deck went from UWB to GW??...

GW beats = Beats deck.  UBW FIsh = Fish deck.

Fair enough.  Let's say we compare Nicolo's list to the Selkie list in the first post.  If you don't count mana, the common cards are 3 Meddling Mage, Ancestral, and Time Walk.  I'm sure Dark Confidant would be in there too if the current fish list we were using ran black.  The 2006 list ran things like Aether Vial, Chalice, Ninja of the Deep Hours, Stormscape Apprentice, and Voidmage Prodigy.  You just don't see those cards that much these days.  The point I'm trying to make is that while blue control decks might swap out a few cards with every new set or B&R change, it's not uncommon for fish and other metagame decks to undergo a minor overhaul. 

Do you consider the utilization of new printings to be a response to the metagame?   So, if Thirst For Knowledge was printed in Zendikar, and blue decks started using that, would you call that a 'minor overhaul' based on the metagame?

Just wondering, cause, you know, every single creature in the Selkie deck except Meddling mage has been printed since 2006. 

[Diakonov]

Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?  Are you suggesting that I ought to replace Stormscape Apprentice, Voidmage Prodigy, Swords to Plowshares, and Chalice with Trygon Predator, Tarmogoyf, and Pridemage just because they were printed?  Personally, I think it would be a downgrade when you're playing against Gifts, Welders, and tendrils combo.

[Smmenen]

Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage? 

Why do you assume that I am making such an assumption?   

[zeus-online]

I'm with Smemmen on this one, every deck is a metagame deck, all decks are made to beat the other viable decks, even combo decks incorporate answers like duress, force, hurkyl's recall etc. to answer the cards they have trouble with.

I view it like the universe, while it's true that earth circles around the sun, the sun also circles around the earth and so on. Everything is linked together.

If this was not the case, and combo/control decks where not meta-game decks, then the decklists would never change (Barring new printings)

Also, "Best deck"...I thought that theory went extinct several years ago?

[Diakonov]

Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?

Why do you assume that I am making such an assumption?  

Because of your hypothetical with Thirst for Knowledge being printed in Zendikar.  If Thirst were printed in pretty much any set in the last 8 years, it would definitely see a lot of play just because it is a great draw spell.  Your hypothetical would lead me to believe that you were trying to suggest the same thing about the Selkie creatures, but most of these creatures have more specific purposes than simply drawing cards, and it would depend on the current metagame as to how optimal their use might be.

[Smmenen]

Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?

Why do you assume that I am making such an assumption?  

Because of your hypothetical with Thirst for Knowledge being printed in Zendikar.  If Thirst were printed in pretty much any set in the last 8 years, it would definitely see a lot of play just because it is a great draw spell.  Your hypothetical would lead me to believe that you were trying to suggest the same thing about the Selkie creatures, but most of these creatures have more specific purposes than simply drawing cards, and it would depend on the current metagame as to how optimal their use might be.

Drawing cards isn't a specific function?   And, aren't particular draw spells better or worse depending on the metagame?  

Just because I was suggesting that a cards printing was a necessary condition to its usage, why would that lead you to conclude that a printing is a sufficient condition for its usage (i.e.: "Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?")?  Do you think that necessary and sufficient conditionality is the same form of causation?  

[voltron00x]

I just wanted to say that this is a fascinating discussion.  This type of high-level discourse would disintegrate quickly on most forums.

I think most Magic players know what someone means when they use the term "metagame deck" so I don't think its ridiculous to claim there's some value to that term as a communication device.

However, there's no logical way you can argue against the idea that every successful deck is a metagame deck.  It is possible to build a deck with no metagame in mind - to just build in a vacuum and play something without doing any testing or with any match-up in mind - but anyone hoping for any level of success wouldn't do so, and you're probably unable to do so once you've played in any tournament, ever, because what you experienced would have an influence on your inclusions and exclusions (whether you would be aware of it or not).

I think to Stephen's point, there is most definitely a certain implied weakness in any deck labeled as a metagame deck.  I would suggest Ichorid is a perfect example.  In the abstract, it is one of the all-time powerful decks in the history of Magic.  In some metagames, it is far and away the best deck you could possibly play.  However, in some metas, it is also one of the worst decks you could possibly play.  There is no doubt in my mind that Ichorid is a metagame deck whose success depends largely upon the decisions of other people in the tournament - something the Ichorid player can't control.  Thus, many people will shun the deck and it carries a certain stigma.  The idea that its "easy" to play successfully in any meta with any level of preparation for it is patently and demonstrably false. 

Anyway, there is a certain mindset in Vintage that you don't run into as often in other formats.  People in Standard will pick up a deck like Owling Mine or Time Sieve or Turbo Fog that is, without a doubt, a glass cannon type strategy that is terrible in the abstract but correctly positioned for a certain tournament or season.  Vintage players tend not to demonstrate that same willingness because they have this dichotomy between "best" decks and "hate" or "metagame" decks.  Its hard to comprehend that something like Noble Fish or Meandeck Beats could possibly be the right choice when Tezz or TPS run so many more powerful cards, and categorizing those decks as "metagame" decks carries a suggestion that they're only good for a certain metagame... while in reality, this is true of ALL decks.  It would be possible to hate Tezzeret out of Vintage, but it would require an impossible level of coordination among Vintage players and require them to play decks that they've proven they are unwilling to accept, in my experience.

If some of this seems half-cooked, I'm writing this from work, so I apologize for that.  In any event I look forward to this article Stephen.  I think your posts actually helped "verbalize" for me (to the extent that written words verbalize something) a feeling or theory that I already agreed with, but couldn't seem to communicate the way I wanted.

[hitman]

There doesn't always have to be a best deck to acknowledge that sometimes there clearly is a best deck.  Several months ago, people were clamoring for cards to be restricted in Tezzeret because the deck was too good.  Even Steve suggested that something should be done about the deck because the numbers it was displaying indicated dominance.  Even though counter-strategies were seeing play, Tezzeret still "dominated" until the DCI restricted Thirst for Knowledge.  Now, months later, we've already forgotten that there was a clearly-best deck?  If there is no such thing as a best deck then why do we have a restricted list?  We've had plenty of examples in the past where decks were simply too powerful against the rest of the field.  A clear example of this is Ravager or Academy in Standard.  

While it's not normal for there to be a clear-cut best deck, sometimes it happens, whether that's due to mistakes in development or disparity in power level relative to the other cards in the card pool.  I agree that it's not usually the case and one of the reasons is because the DCI tries to keep things balanced but sometimes it very clearly happens that a deck comes to prominence and is strategically superior to everything else or most everything else.

[Diakonov]

Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?

Why do you assume that I am making such an assumption?  

Because of your hypothetical with Thirst for Knowledge being printed in Zendikar.  If Thirst were printed in pretty much any set in the last 8 years, it would definitely see a lot of play just because it is a great draw spell.  Your hypothetical would lead me to believe that you were trying to suggest the same thing about the Selkie creatures, but most of these creatures have more specific purposes than simply drawing cards, and it would depend on the current metagame as to how optimal their use might be.

Drawing cards isn't a specific function?   And, aren't particular draw spells better or worse depending on the metagame?  

Just because I was suggesting that a cards printing was a necessary condition to its usage, why would that lead you to conclude that a printing is a sufficient condition for its usage (i.e.: "Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?")?  Do you think that necessary and sufficient conditionality is the same form of causation?  

I do not, but if you are arguing that Blaine's example is inadequate specifically because those cards have been printed since that 2006 iteration of Fish, I would be inclined to assume that you have not considered the possibility that these cards could currently be seeing play for a different reason, namely, a metagame-based one.  Do you agree that this could be the case?

There doesn't always have to be a best deck to acknowledge that sometimes there clearly is a best deck.  Several months ago, people were clamoring for cards to be restricted in Tezzeret because the deck was too good.  Even Steve suggested that something should be done about the deck because the numbers it was displaying indicated dominance.  Even though counter-strategies were seeing play, Tezzeret still "dominated" until the DCI restricted Thirst for Knowledge.  Now, months later, we've already forgotten that there was a clearly-best deck?  If there is no such thing as a best deck then why do we have a restricted list?  We've had plenty of examples in the past where decks were simply too powerful against the rest of the field.  A clear example of this is Ravager or Academy in Standard. 

While it's not normal for there to be a clear-cut best deck, sometimes it happens, whether that's due to mistakes in development or disparity in power level relative to the other cards in the card pool.  I agree that it's not usually the case and one of the reasons is because the DCI tries to keep things balanced but sometimes it very clearly happens that a deck comes to prominence and is strategically superior to everything else or most everything else.

QF I agree very much with this, and think it is a point worth a response.

[Smmenen]

Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?

Why do you assume that I am making such an assumption?  

Because of your hypothetical with Thirst for Knowledge being printed in Zendikar.  If Thirst were printed in pretty much any set in the last 8 years, it would definitely see a lot of play just because it is a great draw spell.  Your hypothetical would lead me to believe that you were trying to suggest the same thing about the Selkie creatures, but most of these creatures have more specific purposes than simply drawing cards, and it would depend on the current metagame as to how optimal their use might be.

Drawing cards isn't a specific function?   And, aren't particular draw spells better or worse depending on the metagame?  

Just because I was suggesting that a cards printing was a necessary condition to its usage, why would that lead you to conclude that a printing is a sufficient condition for its usage (i.e.: "Why are you assuming that their printing is the reason for their usage?")?  Do you think that necessary and sufficient conditionality is the same form of causation?  

I do not, but if you are arguing that Blaine's example is inadequate specifically because those cards have been printed since that 2006 iteration of Fish, I would be inclined to assume that you have not considered the possibility that these cards could currently be seeing play for a different reason, namely, a metagame-based one.  

You've just repeated yourself: Again, why would you make that assumption?   It appears as if you are drawing an unwarranted inference. 

There doesn't always have to be a best deck to acknowledge that sometimes there clearly is a best deck.  Several months ago, people were clamoring for cards to be restricted in Tezzeret because the deck was too good.  Even Steve suggested that something should be done about the deck because the numbers it was displaying indicated dominance.  Even though counter-strategies were seeing play, Tezzeret still "dominated" until the DCI restricted Thirst for Knowledge.  Now, months later, we've already forgotten that there was a clearly-best deck?  If there is no such thing as a best deck then why do we have a restricted list?  We've had plenty of examples in the past where decks were simply too powerful against the rest of the field.  A clear example of this is Ravager or Academy in Standard.  

While it's not normal for there to be a clear-cut best deck, sometimes it happens, whether that's due to mistakes in development or disparity in power level relative to the other cards in the card pool.  I agree that it's not usually the case and one of the reasons is because the DCI tries to keep things balanced but sometimes it very clearly happens that a deck comes to prominence and is strategically superior to everything else or most everything else.

QF I agree very much with this, and think it is a point worth a response.

If the argument is that there is a conceptually best deck -- that is, a deck that is 'best' in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time, then how is what you said relevant at all?  

If your point was that there is an 'abstract' best deck, then how does the point that there is a statistically best performing deck prove that?  After all, isn't it my position that this is precisely the definition of 'best deck'?   If so, then you aren't arguing against what I said in my first posts in this thread, as you suggested:

I agree with the thought that there is a best deck conceptually and, at times, in our experience. 

Hence my question to you:

If the best deck isn't the best performing deck, how do you know it's the best deck?

 

"Metagame" decks do exist because not all decks try to play an interactive game.  With that in mind, we know there is a distinction between decks that do play a disruptive role and some decks that try to just sidestep that strategy and "go for the throat".  Belcher is an example of a deck that's not necessarily a metagame deck.  It's a deck that simply tries to kill its opponent before they can do anything about it.  It eschews interactivity.  In order to metagame, you would have to interact with your opponent in some fashion.  I'm not trying to say that decks like Belcher don't interact in any form but that they clearly are on another part of the spectrum of interactivity.  

Why can't a deck you would consider to be non-interactive be a metagame deck?  

I just wanted to say that this is a fascinating discussion.  This type of high-level discourse would disintegrate quickly on most forums.

Matt: I really like most of what you had to say in this post.  

I think most Magic players know what someone means when they use the term "metagame deck" so I don't think its ridiculous to claim there's some value to that term as a communication device.

Just to be clear: Did I every say the terms is 'ridiculous'?   Or without meaning?   Isn't my point that those meanings are misleading, because the distinction is more or less illusory?   I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it's wrong.    

However, there's no logical way you can argue against the idea that every successful deck is a metagame deck.  It is possible to build a deck with no metagame in mind - to just build in a vacuum and play something without doing any testing or with any match-up in mind - but anyone hoping for any level of success wouldn't do so, and you're probably unable to do so once you've played in any tournament, ever, because what you experienced would have an influence on your inclusions and exclusions (whether you would be aware of it or not).

I think to Stephen's point, there is most definitely a certain implied weakness in any deck labeled as a metagame deck.  

Exactly.   I have a theory about that, which I'll set out in a moment.

I would suggest Ichorid is a perfect example.  

This is the one quibble I have with your post.   To me, Ichorid is, if anything, one of the few decks that can't be a metagame deck.   I view the metagame as a constellation of archtypes.  As I show in my article on Monday, Dredge's performance against the field is not correllated by archetype whatsoever.    I tend to conceptualize the metagame at the archetype level, and I think that's what most people mean by metagame decks: playing a deck that preys on a level 1 deck.  

 
Anyway, there is a certain mindset in Vintage that you don't run into as often in other formats.  People in Standard will pick up a deck like Owling Mine or Time Sieve or Turbo Fog that is, without a doubt, a glass cannon type strategy that is terrible in the abstract but correctly positioned for a certain tournament or season.  Vintage players tend not to demonstrate that same willingness because they have this dichotomy between "best" decks and "hate" or "metagame" decks.  Its hard to comprehend that something like Noble Fish or Meandeck Beats could possibly be the right choice when Tezz or TPS run so many more powerful cards, and categorizing those decks as "metagame" decks carries a suggestion that they're only good for a certain metagame... while in reality, this is true of ALL decks.  It would be possible to hate Tezzeret out of Vintage, but it would require an impossible level of coordination among Vintage players and require them to play decks that they've proven they are unwilling to accept, in my experience.

Bingo.   

If some of this seems half-cooked, I'm writing this from work, so I apologize for that.  In any event I look forward to this article Stephen.  I think your posts actually helped "verbalize" for me (to the extent that written words verbalize something) a feeling or theory that I already agreed with, but couldn't seem to communicate the way I wanted.

It was nicely put.

Here's what I am beginning to think is actually going on:  I suspect that there is a cycle beginning with introduction of an archetype.  

When Stax first hit the scene, I think many people saw it as a 'metagame deck.'   Same with a host of other archetypes that we now consider part of the field.   THis is one of the reasons I object to the terminology.    The GWx Beats deck is, like Fish, here to stay, barring a dramatic change in the composition of the format.   People call it a metagame deck, but in two years it will be an established archetype.      

Bottom line: if a deck is good, it's not a metagame deck, it's an archetype.  And it will be played as long as its good. 

[Elric]

This is an interesting discussion.  

Here’s a proposed counterfactual measure of the extent to which a deck is a metagame deck.  For deck XYZ, if a reasonably large fraction of the field was forced to commit to playing this deck in advance (and other players could then adjust deck choices knowing this), how bad would this be for the players who had to commit?  The worse it is for these players, the more deck XYZ qualifies as a metagame deck.

This is a bit imprecise; you could define “deck” as an exact deck and sideboard, or a group of decks based on the same cards and strategy (Ichorid).  A “reasonably large fraction of the field” isn’t specific- one can imagine a graph with “Percent of field forced to commit” on the x-axis and “How bad it is for the people who commit” on the y-axis.   I’ve also abstracted away from considerations like play skill and card availability.  I'm assuming that the decks under consideration would be played with a non-zero probability absent this commitment requirement.

I don’t mean this to be analogous to the idea of a “best deck.  A “very metagame deck” in this formulation should be incapable of dominating a tournament scene for an extended period of time, but this doesn’t imply that a “less metagame deck” does better than a “more metagame deck” in practice.

In this characterization, it’s clear that Ichorid is a "more metagame deck", as there are plenty of (typically sideboard) cards that deal with it very effectively.   That said, there’s no reason that a metagame deck has to have significantly worse matchups against some archetypes in practice- every deck may include a similar number of “Ichorid hate” cards such that Ichorid does similarly against different archetypes.  

While I've used a "pre-commitment" hypothetical here, one can also consider a different hypothetical of being able to pick a deck after the rest of the field has to commit to their deck (and you see their choices).  In this case, the decks that would do better conditional on being chosen after observing the field might qualify as the "metagame decks."  This could lead to different conclusions- it emphasizes a deck's strengths more than its weaknesses, compared to the above.

[Rico Suave]

Here's what I am beginning to think is actually going on:  I suspect that there is a cycle beginning with introduction of an archetype.  

When Stax first hit the scene, I think many people saw it as a 'metagame deck.'   Same with a host of other archetypes that we now consider part of the field.   THis is one of the reasons I object to the terminology.    The GWx Beats deck is, like Fish, here to stay, barring a dramatic change in the composition of the format.   People call it a metagame deck, but in two years it will be an established archetype.      

Bottom line: if a deck is good, it's not a metagame deck, it's an archetype.  And it will be played as long as its good. 

What I tried to highlight with my first post in this thread is exactly this point, albeit in different words.

A simple yet direct way of showing this is with a classic article that is required reading, not only for this topic, but perhaps for any player who wants to learn more about the game: Finding the Tinker Deck

I tried to argue earlier that G/W Beatz is an archetype based on stompy.  Look at the stompy decks of the 2000-2001 era; they have disruptive creatures like Elvish Lyrist and Uktabi Orangutan, disruptive spells like Tangle Wire, and even disruptive land like Dust Bowl and Rishadan Port.  Their creatures all fit into the 1-3cc range, and their deck's primary goal is to beat down.  G/W Beatz isn't going to be an established archetype in 2 years, it has already been one for over a decade.  We just didn't know that a modern day version would do well until someone updated it successfully.  The individual cards may change but the strategy does not.

A metagame deck is simply an archetype that will have a strategical advantage in a given environment (or tournament if you prefer).  The act of metagaming is adjusting the archetype choice and/or specific cards to perform best in that environment. 

There is a fine distinction that needs to be made though.  A deck like G/W Beatz, while having hate cards, has a strategy.  This is what makes it good.  There are many other decks I've seen, such as ones packing Earwig Squad or Sadistic Sacrament, that have the hate cards but have no strategy.  These are not metagame decks, they are bad decks. 

[Diakonov]

Elric, I really like your example.  It is very similar to the thought experiment I proposed on page 1.

Rico Suave, I think your post is very important, because it highlights the fact that there is a major miscommunication going on here.  We keep arguing about the definition of a "metagame deck," when there are clearly two distinct concepts that are claiming ownership over that title.  I don't think either one is incorrect, but perhaps we could benefit from separating the two.

I completely agree with the notion that, in a certain sense, every deck built by someone who has any idea about what they might face, is a metagame deck.  It is pretty much impossible to argue this.  Going by this definition, Tezz would be a metagame deck.  However, I think that the use of this definition is not effective, because if every deck falls under that category, the term becomes useless as a descriptive tool.

The way I look at the word and use it is based on the degree to which a deck is built around the metagame.  I've always thought of the game as having a swinging scale: proactive (generally), and objectively powerful cards at one end of the spectrum, while at the other end we have reactive (generally) cards that are powerful because they are focused on what's at the other end.  Every deck fits in somewhere, but there are no decks that exist at the most extreme point on either end.

Now, I know that Stephen would say this spectrum is illusory.  I disagree.  

Here is one way to look at it: A. You are going to a tournament, and you discover that for some supernatural reason, Tezz is not going to be there, nor is any variation of a deck that functions like Tezz does.  You were prepared to play GW Beatz.  B. Same scenario, but you were prepared to play Tezz, and beatdown decks will not be there.

I would argue that the resultant, metagame-based changes you ought to make would be a lot more extreme for the GW Beatz deck than compared to the Tezz deck, by percentage of cards changed in the deck.  (This also could be a focal point of where Smmenen and I disagree.)  This would be one hypothetical I might consider if I was asked to evaluate how much a certain deck is a "metagame deck."

My point is that there would be more dead cards, or at least weaker cards, in the GW Beatz deck if Tezz were to be absent from a tournament, when compared to the number of weakened or dead cards in Tezz if GW were absent.

Also, in regard to Rico's post, I can agree that calling GW Beatz a "hate deck" is probably too extreme and misleading.  I like your distinction with cards like Sadistic Sacrament, which I have to admit, sounds far more accurate to be referred to as "hate" than something like Null Rod.

[Rico Suave]

Here is one way to look at it: A. You are going to a tournament, and you discover that for some supernatural reason, Tezz is not going to be there, nor is any variation of a deck that functions like Tezz does.  You were prepared to play GW Beatz.  B. Same scenario, but you were prepared to play Tezz, and beatdown decks will not be there.

I would argue that the resultant, metagame-based changes you ought to make would be a lot more extreme for the GW Beatz deck than compared to the Tezz deck, by percentage of cards changed in the deck.  (This also could be a focal point of where Smmenen and I disagree.)  This would be one hypothetical I might consider if I was asked to evaluate how much a certain deck is a "metagame deck."

My point is that there would be more dead cards, or at least weaker cards, in the GW Beatz deck if Tezz were to be absent from a tournament, when compared to the number of weakened or dead cards in Tezz if GW were absent.

Well this got me to thinking, so how about we investigate this?

I'm just going to take Kowal's G/W Beatz list as a guideline, and while it may not be perfect down to the last card it will serve as a good example nonetheless:

4 Aven Mindcensor
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Gaddock Teeg
3 Elvish Spirit Guide
2 Kataki, War's Wage
2 Jotun Grunt
2 Vexing Shusher
2 Ethersworn Canonist

4 Null Rod
3 Thorn of Amethyst
2 Choke
2 Enlightened Tutor
1 Seal of Cleansing

1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl

1 Strip Mine
3 Wasteland
3 Horizon Canopy
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Windswept Heath
4 Savannah
2 Forest
1 Plains
1 Karakas

SB
3 Exalted Angel
3 True Believer
2 Samurai of the Pale Curtain
2 Wheel of Sun and Moon
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Vexing Shusher
1 Seal of Cleansing
1 Swords to Plowshares

If you were to play this in a field that lacks Tezz, or a field without any Drain based decks, how many slots would you really change?

The only thing that really stands out is Choke.  I suppose you could argue that Vexing Shusher loses a lot of power, but even Kowal himself said that Shusher was actually more useful against Workshop decks that played Chalice at 2 than it was against Drains.

So if Tezz were absent from the metagame, we're looking at changing what, 2-5 cards between maindeck and sideboard? 

Now let's look at Tezz.  If there were no aggro in a particular metagame, I can think of a similar number of cards that would change: Tinker, Robot, SB Pyroclasm. 

I'm not sure that either Tezz or G/W Beatz really changes all that much.  While they may not change the exact same number of cards, certainly we can agree that it is comparable within 2-3 cards, no?  Ultimately I don't think that any of this really defines a metagame deck though, so let me go on...

Going back to the original point, I think that a metagame deck is one that has a strategical advantage in a given tournament.  This is easy to see when you have a lop-sided metagame, like when the tournament is 80% Tezz and you play a Fish deck that beats Tezz 70% of the time.  That is a metagame deck, but most importantly it must be taken in context of that tournament.  If you played Fish in a tournament and people brought their Legacy Zoo decks, you will get crushed and that same list is no longer a metagame deck anymore. 

In a well rounded field, like many modern T1 tournaments, it's actually pretty difficult to call something a metagame deck anymore.  The average player must prepare for Tezz, Oath, Stax, aggro strategies, combo, graveyard strategies, as well as a variety of rogue decks.  Now one of those might be the inherently best deck across the entirety of the format, and sure it might be possible to play deck X that crushes it, but that doesn't mean deck X has a strategical advantage against the field on the particular day of the tournament.  Thus deck X is not a metagame deck.

Everyone metagames to improve their matches.  Not everyone plays a deck that just has a natural advantage over the rest of the field, and that's what I feel is the extra step that makes a "metagame deck."

[voltron00x]

This is the one quibble I have with your post.   To me, Ichorid is, if anything, one of the few decks that can't be a metagame deck.   I view the metagame as a constellation of archtypes.  As I show in my article on Monday, Dredge's performance against the field is not correllated by archetype whatsoever.    I tend to conceptualize the metagame at the archetype level, and I think that's what most people mean by metagame decks: playing a deck that preys on a level 1 deck.  

Ichorid is a metagame deck as much as any other deck.  This past spring, it was perfectly positioned in the meta.  When Tezz was fully dominating events, Ichorid was a tremendously good deck choice.  Many people were skimping on Ichorid hate for Oath transform boards or anti-mirror tech.  As an archetype, Drain decks are among the most vulnerable to Ichorid.  They can't break Bridges, they have no Stripmine or Wasteland, and they're heavily affected by Chalice of the Void.  A normally correcting metagame would've resulted in a large shift to Ichorid.  Instead, a very good % of the people that played Fatestitcher Ichorid put up solid #s for a few months, but Ichorid remained a much smaller % of the field overall that what you would've seen in any other format.  My decision to run Ichorid at the May blue bell was completely a metagame call, and I would've won that event had I won the die roll in the finals (Beaver's accelerated Tezz list was capable of some explosive draws against a deck like Ichorid that lacks Force of Will).

As we moved into the summer, that changed dramatically.  Null Rod aggro and Shops became very popular post-TFK's restriction.  Although G1 against a deck like 5C Stax is hard to lose with Ichorid, G2 & 3 against a list like Nick's, with multiple pieces of hate plus REBs / Pyros for Chain of Vapor on Leyline, is much more difficult.  Similarly Fish is a much harder match-up, as they have some ability to break Bridges, plus counters to protect hate pieces and a decent clock.  A lesser amount of Drain decks to prey on creates an unfavorable shift for Ichorid.  

As I show in my article on Monday, Dredge's performance against the field is not correllated by archetype whatsoever.

I don't think that Ichorid's performance in Vintage is equal across the board.  If you have data to back up that statement, I'll be interested to see it as it doesn't remotely match up with my personal experience playing & testing with Ichorid.

Changes in the amount of hate being played in a meta will also influence Ichorid's performance, independantly of the overall make-up of a given tournament.

Just to be clear: Did I every say the terms is 'ridiculous'?   Or without meaning?   Isn't my point that those meanings are misleading, because the distinction is more or less illusory?   I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it's wrong.  

 I wasn't really directing that comment at your previous posts specifically, and no you didn't say it was ridiculous or meaningless, nor was I trying to say that you did.  The term "metagame" deck has an accepted meaning and people will claim that it therefore has value, but I agree with you that the concept is flawed and essentially wrong as it is commonly applied in Vintage.