Metagame Changes

[Smmenen]

Quote (SpikeyMikey @ April 16 2003,23:51) This isn't a metagame shift, it's an almost complete changing of the guard.

Well written.  

If what you say is true, and I think to a large extent it is - what next?  You are saying is that new decks need to emerge and I agree.  But what are they going to be and who is going to make them?  Ze Germans?  

It will require a fresh perspective of T1.  

I also think that the most successful decks will not be hate decks.  The deck that succeeds best against GAT is not a hate deck like, say the proposed Oath builds, but an inherently powerful lock deck.  

I, for one, won't be spending my time scouring through cards trying to build some new archtype.  Why?  Becuase if nobody else does, then I can simply waltz into a tournament with GAT or STAX and do just fine.

Steve

[doublej20]

Quote (Smmenen @ April 17 2003,13:46)If what you say is true, and I think to a large extent it is - what next?  You are saying is that new decks need to emerge and I agree.  But what are they going to be and who is going to make them?  Ze Germans?  

It will require a fresh perspective of T1.  

I also think that the most successful decks will not be hate decks.  The deck that succeeds best against GAT is not a hate deck like, say the proposed Oath builds, but an inherently powerful lock deck.  

I, for one, won't be spending my time scouring through cards trying to build some new archtype.  Why?  Becuase if nobody else does, then I can simply waltz into a tournament with GAT or STAX and do just fine.

The reason you won't spend your time is because you lack creativity and deck building skills. Rather than innovate, you would rather tout how good GroATog, Keeper, TnT, or mono-blue (previously) is.

This is not to be taken as a personal attack or snipe, because it is not a flame of any kind. It is simply to state that by and large most Type 1 players are just like Type 2 players; instead of using the LARGEST possible card pool and your brain to create a good deck, you would rather netdeck. That is why most players (Americans especially) will never be as good as they could be - because they never really think for themselves. This is also why the people who can read the meta-game and create new decks or modify old ones to beat the standard are the ones who are constantly achieving better desired results (such as Roland Bode, Carsten Kotter, Oliver Daems, Koen van der Hulst, Arthur Tindemans, etc.).

[Dante]

Quote (doublej20 @ April 17 2003,17:54)The reason you won't spend your time is because you lack creativity and deck building skills.

This is not to be taken as a personal attack or snipe, because it is not a flame of any kind. It is simply to state that by and large most Type 1 players are just like Type 2 players; instead of using the LARGEST possible card pool and your brain to create a good deck, you would rather netdeck. That is why most players (Americans especially) will never be as good as they could be - because they never really think for themselves. This is also why the people who can read the meta-game and create new decks or modify old ones to beat the standard are the ones who are constantly achieving better desired results (such as Roland Bode, Carsten Kotter, Oliver Daems, Koen van der Hulst, Arthur Tindemans, etc.).

At the same time, there are lots of types of Magic players with differing skill sets (deck creation, deck building, testing/sideboarding, technical play skills, etc).  

Not everyone is or can be a great deck creator (I differentiate deck creator from deck builder in that deck creation is creating the general theme and framework for the deck e.g. like the Germans and TnT whereas deck building is the actual putting together of a specific decklist e.g. me putting together my R/G/u TnT for Crazy Con).  Some people just have differing/bettor creative thought processes.  Does that mean they are better Magic players?  No, it means they are better deck creators.  

This is one of the primary reasons teams came together - not only could more people pool decks ideas, but so that everyone could raise the skills they were lacking by playing with/being around people with those high skills.  Seeing how great deck creators create decks from the ground up gives new ways of thinking about how you create a deck, the same way playing many games with great technical players will raise your own playskills.

It's kind of like the Chinese and Japanese.  The Chinese created a lot of cultural and technological items that the Japanese simply refined..

Not that I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but there are shades of gray other than netdeckers=stupid lemmings and original deck creators=ideal magic player...

Dante

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

First, for the pourpose of this thread, I agree with Azhrei, hybrid-archetypes most probably are a big part of the future metagame. I was thinking about something similar when AoS and ComboKeeper did well last summer, but than refined (Paragon) Keeper proved usual control can still keep up. I'm quite sure it will do that again (maybe that's the dedicated Keeper player in me :/ ). Having said that, I will still be playing GrimPower as my second kill-option aside from a lone Superman there. Especially Future Sight allows you to go combo a lot of times, even if you don't build the deck for that.
For the moment the 2 best hybrid control decks IMO are Hulk and Shining (ok, I'm advertising, but it's just working GREAT for me and at least one other german player testing it, producing incredible game records).  
This takes me to an aside, courtesy of doublej20s post (hey, I'm mentioned there ). I definitly am a lousy CREATOR for new decks, I just can't feel what will be a working core. What I'm good at (IMO) is refining decks I see, so that they play to my liking and beat people up. Give me a good deck-idea and a list to start from (like Womprax did with Shining), and I'll usually be able to make it work. (yeah, ok, this sounds cocky, I suppose. So sue me.).
Just don't put me at a drawing-board and make me create something new (like TnT or GAT), I'm just bad at that. I'll leave this to Benjamin Rott, Roland, Swen, Benni Ribbeck, Olli & co and help adjust the decks so that they work best.

Therefor I want to back up Dantes statement, different players have different skills. Some invent, some refine, some play great, and some can do good in more than one (or all) departments.

Another decktype that IMO will also be good in the new Metagame (aside from Hybrids) are decks that can prevent other decks from getting that combo-turn. Good examples for this areTangleWire TnT, AnkhSligh (yes, I think it will make a comeback when GAT has cut enough Berserks reasoning that makes it's other matchups better) and Duct Tape (Stax, whatever), although some of them might be able to go of themselves (like Stax broken first turns).
So I suppose the directions the Metagame will head for are combo-hybrid decks wherever they come from (Aggro or Control), decks that prevent others from going of by creating kind of a lock (Stax really does and AnkhSlighs "lock" is low life + Ankh) and true combo-decks with lots of disruption like RectorTrix. True Combo is just great against most lock-decks, as those are usually to slow to keep up with the combo-decks and the hybrid control-decks have at least cut down a little  on real control-cards, giving combo a little easier a time.

So I'm probably one of those evil netdeckers myself, but I still play my own versions. Just don't catch me when playing T2, I'm guilty of totaly netdecking there. I even borrowed the whole deck I played at regionals  .

[Smmenen]

Ignoring DoubleJ's ignorant and baseless comments for the moment - let's a look at something.

Any new deck which is going to succeed has to be grounded in one fundamental concept: a win condition.  Every deck is built around using that win condition in a way that maximizes its effectiveness.  But the effectiveness of the win condition itself matters.  Here is a little brainstorming:

Currently, in type one, what are the best win conditions?

Lets look at the top deck's win conditions:

Psychatog
Quiron Dryad
Karn + lots of artifacts
Mask/ Naught
Grim/ Power
Survival + Incarnations + Squee + Welders

And Morphling (who is more of a finisher)

What is the common thread here?  They are all borderline combo, if not combo (excluding morphling).  

Not everything is a combo - but perhaps, just perhaps borderline combo is best in current t1.  Even Keeper was becoming more "comboish" - we even have combo keeper, holistic keeper, and now future sight (and if Yawgmoth's Win isn't a 1 card combo, what is?).  


Looking back at Hahn's Schools of Magic it is unique to see the various schools of thought and how NON-comboey they were: by contrast:

1) Weissman's Lockdown Serra/Angel deck
2) Disruptive Aggro decks
3) Aggro Control decks
4) Land Destruction
5) Millstone (jester's Cap)
6) Discard beatdown

Those days were simple, weren't they?

Perhaps the answers to current t1 metagame is combo, and lots of it.  Throw 4 Misdirection, 4 FoW, and 4 Duress around a combo and *voila* you have a chance against some decks.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Quote Any new deck which is going to succeed has to be grounded in one fundamental concept: a win condition.  Every deck is built around using that win condition in a way that maximizes its effectiveness.  But the effectiveness of the win condition itself matters

I look at this a little different: for some decks, the win condition is not really deciding. Lock decks like Stacks, for example, kill by using Karn, because it's a simple way but especially because the cards are not useless on their own. That deck can win with virtually anything, after it has gone to total lockdown mode. Karn just is a usefull card on it's own and makes for a fast and simple kill option in a pinch.
The same is true for the GrimPower combo, it allows you to play close to no dedicated win-options (even making your usually useless manabase part of what you win with), which keeps you from having useless cards in the early game. Only PA takes up an otherwise useless slot, while Monolith and Geyser/Stroke/Wishes do a lot of stuff giving you the lead. This is what makes those cards great win conditions, they're not simpler or better than other win conditions, they just keep the number of useless cards devoted to make you win down to a minimum. For example in testing I sometimes finished GrimPower while there were 2 or more Time Walks waiting to be used. I could have easily killed with morphling than, but Morphling uses up space I want early game spells in. And even though it's harder to accomplish, Grim Power kills when you're ready, which is a nice side-effect. In at least 9 out of 10 times, when you cast GrimPower, the game is already won. It's just that it keeps the deck from having dead cards and can give you a lucky win every 20 or so games as a nice benefit.

For Mask/Nought, Tog and Dryad, what Smmenen said is true, they're just brutally effective, which is what makes them that good. They also force you to have your deck build around them, though, which differentiates them from Karn and GrimPower.
In short GrimPower and Karn are used because they fit in easiest, wasting as few space as possible, while the creatures work because the decks are build to make them do so and they are efficient enough to make those deck good contenders.

Quote and if Yawgmoth's Win isn't a 1 card combo, what is?

Tog It uses all the cards you can draw to make you go off in a similar way will does

[bebe]

Some sort of combo-control is clearly the direction we are heading in. Scanning through tournement listings I was able to compile a list of decks that have done well for my combo article. These excluded GAT, Tainted Mask and Stax. The current listings already exceed twenty-seven pages.

I prepared the article by having e-mail conversations with the Type 1 community in three continents. Clearly this is a trend that is growing.

I mentioned elsewhere that it could very likely result in ridiculous restrictions as WotC has always tried to crush combo decks they felt dominant rather than wait to see what answers we could develop to combat them. Witness the restriction of Earthcraft. In their delusion they unrestricted Berserk in the hope that it might boost aggro.  

I personally, being the rogue player that I am, love the way Type 1 is evolving. Let's look at what we have ...

Great control in combo-Keeper
Great lock deck in Ducktape
Great aggro in TnT
Great combo in Trix and Mask
Great aggro-combo-control in GAT

Along with these we have a slew of decks that do well ... Fish, Ankh Sligh and others.

This is not the same as when Necro and Academy just dominated or BBS ran us over. Each of these decks gave clear weaknesses we can exploit and none of them are close to invincible.

[Smmenen]

Don't forget just plain great combo in Rector Trix too.

STeve

[psyduck]

WEstredale had one of the best rector trix builds ive seen. Its quite scary simply because cabal therapy *can be* one of the scariest cards to face against.

[walking dude]

it's true. Westredale's trix list (and some other trix lists i've seen) fare very well (in games ones at least) against GAT, Tnt, and Smokestack. The metagmae looks like is going to be very intresting wiht a lot of different decks that have differing matches and are much more complicated than control over combo over aggro that classical theory gives us.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Yes, I too think that we'll have a really interesting meta when the dust settles. The thing that makes me sad about it, though, is that none of these decks aside from GAT looks like it could fare well unpowered. As I do own power, that's not really a problem for me personally, but it makes it hard to get newer players to the format. If all remotely tire 1 decktypes need close to a full set of power, it makes it a lot harder for people to enter and learn what fun it is to play classic. And after the restriction of Entomb and the hard situation of classic aggro (Sligh, Sui), GAT will most probably the only deck a newbie can take to a tournament.
Sligh, contrary to popular believe, needs a lot of skill to be successfull, and the new environment makes sure you'll get crushed if you don't have that (instead of leaving you a chance to at least go positive, like 4:3 or 3:2 in the tourney, even if you aren't a great player).
Well all this talk that just wants to say: I don't like to see a 2 class system in T1, where powered deck beats unpowered deck is true in almost every case.

[Dozer]

I agree with a lot that has been said in this thread, but I most definetely want to comment on this:

Quote And after the restriction of Entomb and the hard situation of classic aggro (Sligh, Sui), GAT will most probably the only deck a newbie can take to a tournament.

Sui (with Unearth) is a deck that should not be dismissed like that. It's good enough to compete with and beat the combo and control decks. It cannot beat GAT without heavy sideboarding, but after that it is possible. Although it takes some skill sometimes to make the right decisions and needs Sinkholes (which are not easy to come by), it can be built and played by beginners.
I consider it the other aggro-control deck out there beside GAT - less explosive, and less good against aggro, but good against the rest of the field.

I also want to stress the point that I feel that the environment seems as diverse as it seldom was. Although the money barrier on some required cards for "alternative" decks is pretty high (Masks, Workshops), I must agree to bebe when he says "we have a slew of decks that do well".

Now the DCI just needs to unrestrict Entomb again... then we can exploit a real plethora of decks that are viable.

Dozer

[MolotDET]

Quote Ankh Sligh is very competitive, but with Tog around, I just see it as something I've never seen Sligh as before; a deck that has virtual autoloses to something that isn't combo. That said, Sligh used to be a fair deck to take to almost any metagame and expect to do well and now it has to actually consider the metagame.

     Though, I agree with some of what Steve is saying here, I think that since about a year and a half ago Sligh has had these problems.  This also happened to coincide with the time that Control decks started having the same hardships.  So sligh was forced to meta-game, that was the first sign that a healthy meta-game was coming.  That being said, I think that AnkhSligh (which is what Sligh evolved into) is still in it’s infancy.  I have posted a new AnkhSligh build, it takes the changing meta game into consideration and I think with some work will bring Sligh back into the meta-game.

Quote Combo decks can and will win their share of tournaments. Academy, Trix, FeB, Pandeburst, TurboNevyn and even High Tide make top eights consistently. There would be more in the top spots if more were played. Many combo decks require a level of skill that newer players have difficulty with and the experienced players tend to play Keeper, TnT, GAT and other so-called Tier 1 decks. I've done a lot of corresponding with the Europeans and they are all now investigating combo decks and I suspect some decks  ( ReapLace and others) to begin appearing in the Top eight.

     This is completely true.  Combo decks have always and will always have their spot in the meta-game and the best players always seem to be playing something else.  Just a head count from any tourney will show you why combo doesn’t do as well as it should.  In most tornies you go to the field is about 2% combo.  At the TMD Championships I was one of four people running Combo in a field of 70+, that is basically why combo is not always in the forefront of the meta-game.  In addition to this, where are the originators of combo decks?  Most people have gone full force into making existing decks better but almost no one is creating combo decks.  What I mean is, “since Urza’s Block there have been no viable combos made other than Dragon?”  This can not be the case.

Quote Any new deck which is going to succeed has to be grounded in one fundamental concept: a win condition.  Every deck is built around using that win condition in a way that maximizes its effectiveness.  But the effectiveness of the win condition itself matters.

     I actually don’t think this is true, and I believe this is the exact opposite.  I think that the deck itself should define what its win condition is.  In the case of GAT, Grow decks were not overly dominate until Tog.  Through a few Togs into the Grow engine and you have an awesome deck, put one or two Morphlings into Keeper and you have a great kill condition, or Stroke in Academy or Dreadnought in Mask.  So decks need a win condition but it doesn’t have to be built around it.  Keeper was not built around Morphling, it evolved into using Morphling and it made the deck better.
     I was talking to JP one time and he said, “Tog is a Great deck because it is good in a deck with cards in it.”  What I got from that is, though the Tog itself is not a great creature, it is great in that deck because it feeds off it.  Tog is not the traditional great creature for type one.  It is three casting cost.  It has two different colored mana in its casting cost.  It has no ability to protect itself.  It has no utility ability, nor does it give any type of card advantage.  So why is it good?  Because, with a huge drawing engine it is an efficient Kill condition.  So, GAT wasn’t created for Tog but, Tog was the best kill condition for GAT.

Quote As much as I respect Legend and Molo, I do not think Ankh Sligh to be a great deck. I think a few great players have given it respectability.

     I am not going to say anything about this statement other than.  MY NAME IS “MOLOT” NOT MOLO, thanks Bube 

     Ok so on to Azhrie’s ideas:  And MY name is Azhrei.  <--- I have been noticing more and more that scarcasum is lost on some of the people here, either that or it is just so hard to understand on-line you would think that three misspelled names in a row would make people laugh...  Mo

Quote the typical archetypes of Magic, as far as Type One is concerned, are dead and dying. Control, combo, and aggro are no longer adequate strategies with which to compete in the modern metagame

     I think this has been happening over the last few years.  Control decks that have started to include a back-up combo or being able to sideboard into heavier Aggro or disruption: or Aggro decks that began splashing colors for more control type effects: or combo decks that started running more control elements or relying on creatures to perform or speed their combos.  It has been a long time in coming but in hindsight, we should have seen it.

     I agree with your listing but I think it only reflects the meta-game as it stands presently and not what it will become shortly.  And I think that those decks still fall into the classic frame work: Keeper is control that kills with a creature (as it has always been), TnT is aggro that uses a combo, Smash is control that kills with a creature, Gat is aggro that uses control, and Mask is combo that kills with a creature.  The traditional lines between the arch-types are blurred but they are still there.

     Of course I blame all of this on WoTC.  In their headlong rush to make the game more creature oriented they have made creatures that blur the lines between the arch-types.

Some thoughts,

Tom.[/B]\n\n

[disrupting sPECter]

I ain't crazy about the current environment. All the things people complain about type one are becoming harder to argue against.

1) Building  an unpowered, monocolored or budget deck that is decent is harder to do. It used to be possible to build one no matter what your play style is. Not so much anymore.

2) Too many decks do just cream all over your face while you can only sit there and smile at the camera. Many people think type one is all "land,mox,lotus,channel,fireball". How far away from that is it, really?

[MoreFling]

Quote (disrupting sPECter @ May 17 2003,21:32)2) Too many decks do just cream all over your face while you can only sit there and smile at the camera. Many people think type one is all "land,mox,lotus,channel,fireball". How far away from that is it, really?

I can't believe how right you actually are.

I thought about it, pictured our weekly playtesting, and often, with the decks we currently like to play, and are good in a general metagame (rector trix, GAT, stax), all they do is sit there, do their thing, and almost completely disregard the opponent.

It's truly just playing with yourself. Some of our testing matches might as well have been goldfishing. I was with URphid against Stax (Pyro), and all that mattered was who got the better initial 7. All the games we played, which were a good 15 without SB, all came down to: Either I completely trashed him, or he completely trashed me. There was little to no interaction at all between us, since I just countered what should be countered if I could, and he just tried to lock me down if he could.

In conclusion, I pretty much have to agree with you on point 2).

However, on point 1). I DO think that some metagames are like that, where there are a lot of good and serious players who have access to just about any card. Metagames like Dulmen and our very own Eindhoven springs to mind. However, in the same region, we also have Castricum, where all this stuff doesn't seem to apply or matter. Over half the people play sub-optimal decks, and more often than not, you'll be facing a rogue deck, at least until you get to the upper tables. And if you don't get there, you might be facing rogue decks all day long. (T1 Fires, anyone?) Note that by 'rogue-deck', I do not necessarily mean 'bad deck', there's quite a big difference.

btw, Immolation on Tog anyone ?  

[waSP]

The problem with the lack of budget decks isn't that the metagame is extremely power oriented, its that no one is building them.  I understand that the sligh and suicide devotees are bringing their decks back, and an interest in white weenie has been strong recently.  Players, after awhile, begin to see what the weakness in their deck is.  This is when the adaption occurs.  Affordable decks are harder to adapt because they can't run certain cards.  If you aren't running power in you aggro deck, why play blood moon.  Do you really think your turn 3 blood moon will resolve.  I think affordable decks will return (especially aggro) as soon as good players look at adapting them properly.  I've got a nice R/G beatz build that has favorable matchups against a lot of the metagame but has 1-2 horrid matchpus.  It is possible to adapt,  you just have to try.

[jpmeyer]

Quote (waSP @ May 19 2003,00:27)The problem with the lack of budget decks isn't that the metagame is extremely power oriented, its that no one is building them.  I understand that the sligh and suicide devotees are bringing their decks back, and an interest in white weenie has been strong recently.  Players, after awhile, begin to see what the weakness in their deck is.  This is when the adaption occurs.  Affordable decks are harder to adapt because they can't run certain cards.  If you aren't running power in you aggro deck, why play blood moon.  Do you really think your turn 3 blood moon will resolve.  I think affordable decks will return (especially aggro) as soon as good players look at adapting them properly.  I've got a nice R/G beatz build that has favorable matchups against a lot of the metagame but has 1-2 horrid matchpus.  It is possible to adapt,  you just have to try.

I was discussing with kirdape3 a few days ago about what decks he should keep on him while he works on accumulating the cards that he needs for GAT.  After a few minutes, the whole conversation pretty much just boiled down to "Which tier 3 deck should I play?" which then became "Why are you playing a format if you can only play tier 3 decks?"

**WARNING TIER LISTINGS**

I tossed out something like this:

Tier 1:
Stax, GAT, Hulk

Tier 2:
Keeper, TnT, Mask, UrPhid, Trix

(Don't pay attention to the actual decks listed in the tier listing.  The point is mostly to show how usually budget decks are really just weaker versions of tier 1/2 decks.)

What's the point of playing Suicide when Mask does the same thing but better?  Yes, there are cost issues but you're just taking a tier 2 deck and dropping it further down.  What's the point of Fish when GAT is the same deck with bigger creatures and the ability to auto-win?

In the end, what really is the point of playing a bad deck?  How fun is it to be incredibly handicapped in such a fast environment?  What's the point of trying to "adapt" a budget deck when it loses to almost every tier 1 or 2 deck?

[Fever]

@JP

My sentiments exactly. This is precisely what i have been saying for months, whats the point of bringing Sligh or Suicide to a tourney if you have no reasonable chance at winning?

[Toast]

Quote Tier 1:
Stax, GAT, Hulk
Tier 2:
Keeper, TnT, Mask, UrPhid, Trix

Ack I hate to start a fight about what is and is not tier one, but I think that you aren't giving enough credit to some of the decks that you dubbed tier two.

Keeper, TnT, and UrPhid definately deserve to be up there as tier one.

Keeper and TnT are both very good decks, but they are expensive to make, and very difficult to play properly. With Keeper, most people have already realized the fact that it is difficult to play. TnT is a different story.

I see so many people misplaying TnT, survivaling during their turn in situations where it should have been done at the end of their opponents turn, searching for the wrong cards, misusing welders, playing first turn workshops without any other mana accel, and even just not using all of the intricate tricks that can be done with the utility.

I am amazed when I proxy up various other good decks to play so I can learn the tricks behind them and play better during those matchups, at how badly my friends fair with TnT. My friends are fairly good players and they don't make many of the mistakes I have listed above and yet still I have a 95% win record versus them while they are playing TnT and I am playing random other good decks.

I however fair very well with TnT and consistantly T8 in big tourneys and win a respectable number of them too.

The Combination of the fact that TnT and Keeper are expensive and the fact that few people can play them well makes it so that they only comprise 6-10% of the decks at most tourneys. This lowers the number of tourney wins because few people are playing them AND even fewer are playing them well.

GAT seems slightly more successful not because it is a better deck but because more people are playing it which increases the chances of a good player getting a bunch of very good matchups. Stax also very successful because so many more people are playing GAT than are playing TnT.

on UrPhid look at the last few tourney reports, it definately has won 3 major tourneys recently... It might even be 3 straight.

I don't have enough experience with good Trix and Mask players to judge whether or not those decks also deserve to be considered Tier 1, but from the experiences that I have had with them I would probably also place them in tier two.

[Toast]

smmenen:

The tiers have nothing to do with whether or not decks have an environment defining creature in them ( I could play a mono green beast deck and run 4 tog and that wouldn't make it good), they have to do with what decks are better than others.

Nothing deserves to be tier 1 just because it is the answer to all(under debate) other tier 1 decks.

back in the day some people were saying that stompy was the answer to keeper (which had much less competition for being the best deck out there) and stompy was NEVER Tier 1 simply because it is and was bad. I am not saying that Stax doesn't deserve to be Tier 1 anyways (it actually is a good deck) but using the logic you used to justify the placement of Stax would mean that TnT is tier 1 as well, because all of those Tier 1 decks listed are favorable matchups for TnT so it is the "answer" to the other Tier 1 decks.

Stax would then no longer be Tier 1 because it would no longer be the answer to all the Tier 1 decks.

Quote  Urphid is NOT tier 1.  GOD DAMNIT you have to understand that URphid will only win by 1) getting lucky and 2) playing agianst subpar people with subpar builds of better decks.

Easy there killer... just because you despise a deck that lots of other people think is good and do well with, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the top tier of decks. I feel the same way about GAT and I am not excluding it because of my personal opinions.

[jpmeyer]

My listings were really rough.  I just listed decks that I thought were or could be in either tier.  Don't turn this into a tier discussion regarding the decks I listed.  That wasn't the point.\n\n

[kirdape3]

Alright guys, calm down.  I agree with Smmenen, but that does not mean that this sort of argument is tolerated.

Yeah.  The cheapest good deck in Type One right now is roughly $1000 to assemble from scratch (Gro-a-Tog).  There's no way I can assemble something that costs more than my books for the whole year (I lack power as well as some of the duals and I'm still missing Berserk).  1.5 DOES exist here in Rochester NY at Millennium Games, but the play level is so low that it's entirely not worth my time to try (outside of this next weekend which is Team Sealed).

The point JP made and that I'm trying to is that all of a sudden (within the last year, certainly) Type One doesn't exist without either proxy tournaments or a pile of money.  Every other deck you could play is too underpowered to survive.

[Zharradan]

Which could also lead to the (also dangerous) old argument of T1 reprints. In the past, we could argue that T1 was accessable because cheap decks were playable. We never said they were the best, but they were definately above "useless pile".  Not so easy anymore...

Back on topic, to answer the "why play a format when you can only play an extremely suboptimal deck?" question.. well, if it weren't rhetorical I'd say "just don't". At least, not if you are playing to win.

[jpmeyer]

Quote (Zharradan @ May 19 2003,14:00)Which could also lead to the (also dangerous) old argument of T1 reprints. In the past, we could argue that T1 was accessable because cheap decks were playable. We never said they were the best, but they were definately above "useless pile".  Not so easy anymore...

Back on topic, to answer the "why play a format when you can only play an extremely suboptimal deck?" question.. well, if it weren't rhetorical I'd say "just don't". At least, not if you are playing to win.

And not only that, but at the same time Extended hadn't rotated so decks were full of duals that all cost $10+ each and the big decks in Type 2 were filled with pricey rares (Fires and Nether-Go anyone?)

[hulk3rules]

Quote (Smmenen @ May 19 2003,12:11)Toast: Urphid is NOT tier 1.  GOD DAMNIT you have to understand that URphid will only win by 1) getting lucky and 2) playing agianst subpar people with subpar builds of better decks.

You keep saying that, and we'll keep winning with it  

Urphid has the flexibility to beat anything.  Some people say that GAT should destroy it.  But seriously, REB, Blood moon, control magic, and the plethora of other counters it runs makes it just devastating vs GAT.  I really can't think of any deck that will "just win" vs. Urphid.  Stax is a very tough matchup for it, but that deck is very rare IRL and it's still not an impossible match.  Counter the fat, fire the welders, and you can pull through

[Lord of the Goats]

Quote (Smmenen @ May 19 2003,11:17)Your assumption that TnT has a favorable matchup against GAT is utterly baseless.  GAT has a very favorable matchup against TnT becuase of Berserk.  Furthermore, while I didn't make it explict, it was heavily implied that Stax is a good deck not because it is soley the answer, but becuase it is an inherently powerful deck in its own right.

*Sigh*  I suppose it's time to end my self-imposed silence.  I have been watching your "Stax" primer with some bemusement at a general lack of understanding of how that deck works among the T1 community.  TnT is a favorable matchup - our testing has proven that - the key is a correct build.  In fact there is one card in particular that makes TnT go from a split to the W.

Steve Menendian

tnt has a favorable gat match because of tangle wire and welders. i've tested it and in your own words, the key is a correct build.

now, given your impression of the tnt/gat matchup, how can we believe what you say about the stax/tnt match? i hardly find your comments any more convincing than toasts. the whole "i know more than you do" thing is worthless.

[Matt The Great]

What is this 'secret tech card' that makes Stax beat TNT? I've been waiting for you to post in the Stax primer thread but so far, nothing.\n\n

[CrazyCarl]

Quote (drg` @ May 20 2003,11:33)

Quote (kirdape3 @ May 19 2003,10:07) Alright guys, calm down.  I agree with Smmenen, but that does not mean that this sort of argument is tolerated.

Yeah.  The cheapest good deck in Type One right now is roughly $1000 to assemble from scratch (Gro-a-Tog).  There's no way I can assemble something that costs more than my books for the whole year (I lack power as well as some of the duals and I'm still missing Berserk).  1.5 DOES exist here in Rochester NY at Millennium Games, but the play level is so low that it's entirely not worth my time to try (outside of this next weekend which is Team Sealed).

The point JP made and that I'm trying to is that all of a sudden (within the last year, certainly) Type One doesn't exist without either proxy tournaments or a pile of money.  Every other deck you could play is too underpowered to survive.

Seatle and Syracuse NY also have 1.5 tournements weekly if anyone cares.  Also 1.5 is turning more and more expensive as people learn what you can do with the format.  Decks like lock stock, hulk, shifter mask, tradewind survival (ats), GAT, and several other decks still need several out of print chaise cards like berserk, mask, workshops, drains in 1-2 and 4 each respectively.  Or you could always play sligh or ww and just not win as much, but have a shot of winning none the less.  So its still budget but to win cost money / trading skillz for cards.

Mike

In which case you should stop messing around and just play Type 1.  That is, unless you're too afraid to play me

[Zherbus]

I remember when threads used to be cool.