This thread was prompted by the somewhat amusing quote in...

[jpmeyer]

This thread was prompted by the somewhat amusing quote in my Eternal Dragon Keeper thread that by adding card drawing to my Keeper I was making it into "bad Hulk" as well as something that Chris Pikula said to me during a Type 1 tourney a few years ago "Keeper only exists because other decks in Type 1 are bad."

Anyway, for reference:

Zherbus' Disrupting Keeper

4 Wasteland  
3 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
3 Underground Sea
2 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
1 Strip Mine
1 Library of Alexandria
1 City of Brass

1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring

4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
4 Brainstorm
3 Cunning Wish
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Time Walk
1 Future Sight
1 Fact or Fiction
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Timetwister

3 Duress
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Skeletal Scrying
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mind Twist

2 Swords to Plowshares
1 Balance

2 Gorilla Shaman

1 Goblin Trenches

SB:  4 Red Elemental Blast
SB:  1 Blue Elemental Blast
SB:  1 Circle of Protection: Red
SB:  1 The Abyss
SB:  1 Coffin Purge
SB:  1 Aura Fracture
SB:  1 Skeletal Scrying
SB:  1 Vampiric Tutor
SB:  1 Gush
SB:  1 Disenchant
SB:  1 Shattering Pulse
SB:  1 Swords to Plowshares

I thought about what Keeper's role generally was for the longest time, which was to find a game-winning card (note the choice of the word "find" as opposed to "search," which is important) and then win with it.  For most of the time this card was Morphling, Balance, Mind Twist, or The Abyss (as well as post-SB cards like CoP: Red and Moat.)

Now, there is a clear distinction between playing a silver bullet strategy and simply playing a powerful card strategy, since very often the best deck in a given format is the one that plays all the most powerful cards.  However, it still surprised me for how long people in Type 1 would continue to play decks that scoop to many powerful, common cards in the format.  Most aggro decks couldn't answer Abyss, nonblue control usually couldn't beat Balance/Mind Twist, and so on.  This is also one of the biggest reasons that Keeper couldn't beat monoblue during the 4 FoF era--it couldn't create a game-winning amount of real or vitual card advantage with a specific card that was difficult for them to answer like it could against more or less every other deck in the format.  This lack of deckbuilding savvy produced what I'm pretty sure was some unintentional humor when Berserk was unrestricted when people started saying "Oh no!  We'll never be able to beat control now that they'll be running Swords to Plowshares!"  Currently, most of the best decks no longer scoop (and in some cases, don't even care about) many of these staple cards, with Balance becoming one of the next most likely victims of this.

The second of the weaknesses that I see in Keeper is the real lack of card drawing.  Outside of the obvious Ancestral and FoF, Keeper decks really only run a few more card drawers, all of which are a bit clunky.  It seems telling that "Keeper can't run Psychatog because it doesn't draw enough cards" to quote Zherbus.  This also ties into the fact that it is simply better to draw into the cards that you need than to have to tutor for them, which you can see best in a comparison between Trix and say, Pandeburst.

The third weakness is the inconsistency due to the unsynergistic nature of the deck's gameplan, ie Balance and Mind Twist, Skeletal Scrying and Will, draw and Twister, and so on.  This inconsistency really helps to give Keeper its title as "the deck that you can't bring to an 8 round tourney."

My attempt to try to figure out how to resuscitate was Dragon Keeper.  At this point, since I think that it is really important for a control deck to you know, actually be able to draw cards and not just put its game in the hopes that its opponent is bad, I noticed that other than the above suggestion of Hulk, the only other option was really the Shining, since in all three decks the card advantage was also a victory condition in and on itself, literally in the case of Dragon Keeper and Shining.

Is there any more reason for Keeper to exist?  If it even can still win, should it?

[Matt The Great]

Well...I definitely think that Dragon/Trenches deck is just inferior to Tog in about every way.

You raise many interesting questions, sorry that's the only one I can answer offhand.

[jpmeyer]

I think it's inferior, too.  I wanted to see if the deck would work, but it also coincidentally brought up how really any attempt to make Keeper "better" turns it into either Hulk or Shining.

[Grendal]

Quote (jpmeyer @ Aug. 31 2003,19:43)I think it's inferior, too.  I wanted to see if the deck would work, but it also coincidentally brought up how really any attempt to make Keeper "better" turns it into either Hulk or Shining.

Keeper dead?  hrmm... that’s a tough one.

I would say defiantly no.   What a lot of people may not realize is that Hulk and The Shining, and decks like that are built of the foundation of (Keeper / The Deck).    Go back and look at the original "The Deck" and you'll notice it is vastly different from the version that many know as Keeper today.   Perhaps Hulk and/or The Shining are the next evolution in Keeper.   Because in reality that is all they really are, is pumped up Keeper decks with more draw, and less board control.

People can post all day long that a deck is dead, but time and time again dead decks still seem to win tourneys.   I honestly believe that if you forced every (good player) to play say Rector/Trix at the next big tourney, that Rector/Trix would not only win, but have multiple decks in the finals.   A decks (goodness) really doesn't have much to do with the cards in it, more so than with the player controlling it.

Zherbus / JP / Crazy Carl, any of those names could walk into a tourney sporting Sligh variants, and I’m willing to bet because they are good players, and will have done proper metagaming and the like, that they very much have a chance to come out on top.   it isn't because they are packing the most powerful deck in the world, it’s because they are experienced.

Saying Keeper is dead is moronic IMO.  It may very well be that Keeper isn't "The next big thing" but just because the popularity of decks has swung towards Hulk, doesn't mean Keeper is any more or less viable than it was before.   It just means with more people playing Hulk, that there is a higher likelihood of us seeing Hulk decks in the finals.

I think boards like this are great because they let us fine tune decks, and really put everyone’s heads together about meta gaming strategies and the like, but to actually make a thread stating that a deck archetype is dead, when obviously it isn't, is crazy.    Mark my words, the same people posting on this thread, or ones like it saying Keeper is dead, will many months down the line be preaching it as the be all and end all of decks once again.

Currently Keeper is still probably the most hated deck in the environments, and rightly so, it’s dominated for years on end.   But if Hulk really does take off, what then?   All of a sudden there will be decks packing tons of graveyard hate, 4 Maze of Ith's main decked, and crazy stuff like that, and then guess what... the tide swings the other way, and Keeper in the eyes of many rises again.   Keeper is a pendulum, this month it may not be the most popular deck, but just wait...  its always there, it never goes away...  and it continues to win and evolve.

- Grendal

[Setnakt]

I believe the point is that Keeper is evolving. It's been stated that it evolves into either ComboKeeper or Hulk. It's a fairly safe thing to say too, because those decks don't NEED to control the board. No matter how redundant, or diverse, or strong, or fast, or slow a control deck is, you can always find some strategy to do something to piss it off. Decks like Hulk and ComboKeeper get around this because the strategy involves actually winning. I.e., why bother tutoring for Balance when you can just win? I believe it's generally accepted, or at least solid enough, to say that it's a superior strategy.

Obviously the most distinct difference between Trenches Keeper and Hulk is the kill. It is an important point that people will start trying to kill Togs more, so, maybe Keeper will have a niche then, in that it will basically take decks by surprise and take pressure off Hulk. It's hard to say though, but I like the idea of an evolution to a balanced metagame.

Keeper is nice to have around as a general control deck. I think the point of the deck was that it shouldn't have been winning, but it did, because it made itself so much of a toolbox to where it could just fetch a card and win. Bombs shouldn't win games, but they do, because sometimes the other guy slips up or a deck that wins a lot just has a weakness. The point of Keeper is to make bad decks pay for it. Ideally, no, Keeper shouldn't win, but I think the nature of the deck itself will keep itself alive, to an extent.

So is it dead? I dunno, but I wouldn't play it.

[jpmeyer]

Quote What a lot of people may not realize is that Hulk and The Shining, and decks like that are built of the foundation of (Keeper / The Deck).    Go back and look at the original "The Deck" and you'll notice it is vastly different from the version that many know as Keeper today.   Perhaps Hulk and/or The Shining are the next evolution in Keeper.   Because in reality that is all they really are, is pumped up Keeper decks with more draw, and less board control.

I vehemently disagree.  Psychatog and Shining are not based on Weissman-style control at all.  They are based on the Necropotence strategy.  While it doesn't actually use Necropotence, the deck runs under the assumption that it will be drawing such a steady stream of cards that it can afford to trade cards (or possibly even give cards up) to stop the opponent's cards simply because they are drawing so many more.  Weissman, OTOH, is based on stabilizing and controlling the board and/or cards in hand (see Finding the Tinker Deck).

Quote People can post all day long that a deck is dead, but time and time again dead decks still seem to win tourneys.   I honestly believe that if you forced every (good player) to play say Rector/Trix at the next big tourney, that Rector/Trix would not only win, but have multiple decks in the finals.   A decks (goodness) really doesn't have much to do with the cards in it, more so than with the player controlling it.

The difference that I am making in my post that I feel separates it from the older "Keeper is dead" posts is that the other ones focused more on things like bad matchups or hate.  What I am saying is that the strategy is simply obsolete, and this obsolescence in the deck's technology is what is currently making Keeper bad, yet any attempts to try to shore up the holes are turning it into a different deck.

Quote Zherbus / JP / Crazy Carl, any of those names could walk into a tourney sporting Sligh variants, and I’m willing to bet because they are good players, and will have done proper metagaming and the like, that they very much have a chance to come out on top.   it isn't because they are packing the most powerful deck in the world, it’s because they are experienced.

While this is true to an extent (Sylvain Lauriol said something along the lines of "Sometimes playskill can matter more than deck construction" after he won the Berlin Worlds T1 tourney,) it really doesn't answer the question of as to why you would want to play a deck that is functionally weaker than many other decks.  In quite a few of the most recent European tournies listed on Morphling.de, you can notice that TnT has been supplanted by Stax, which has now been supplanted by Mud.  While these decks aren't as similar as say, decks that have simply been tuned a little or had another color splashed, they still are functionally similar but each one was simply more powerful than the previous ones.

Quote Saying Keeper is dead is moronic IMO.  It may very well be that Keeper isn't "The next big thing" but just because the popularity of decks has swung towards Hulk, doesn't mean Keeper is any more or less viable than it was before.   It just means with more people playing Hulk, that there is a higher likelihood of us seeing Hulk decks in the finals.

If you noticed, I did not say that Keeper was dead because of a lack of high finishes or because of the presence of bad matchups.  In fact, I didn't even say that Keeper was dead.  I merely pointed out that the deck's strategy is obsolete and therefore it SHOULD be dead unless someone can think of a way to let it keep its "Keeperness" without relying on one-card answers that aren't answers any more.

[PsychoCid]

I find that I have little choice but to keep this post short and sweet.

I have been in agreeance with Jaypee as far as the overall view of the issue goes.  I think that it is not correct to say that Keeper is 'dead' so much as simply inferior.

I think it wise to acknowledge the fact that, as BrianB once said to me, 'Anything with power is bound to win once in a while.'  Keeper is so laden with cards that are super powerful in their own right that it still has a -reasonable- chance against anything that can be presented, assuming the player knows what he's doing.  These powerful cards are also much slower and clunkier than the piles we know as MUD and Tog and whatnot whose cards aren't as broken in their own right but are especially lethal combined.

Really, we've reached critical mass of cards that combo well with eachother which also aren't too weak without the other parts.

I don't know that there's really anything more to be said about this.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

I'll start this with quoting myself from the UrPhid thread:

Quote Some article once said, that control would become superflous, if a combo-kill ever became small enough to be put into the skeleton of a control deck. Psychatog and Tendrils/Sight do exactly that. They take a control-deck but instead of taking a slow-but-secure kill-condition like a typical control-deck does, they use a combo-kill- card that fills their needs as a single turn of control is now enough to kill. It's just a lot easier to take control for one turn than to keep it up over an extended period of time.
So I have to postulate while the point where that combo-piece is small enough was 2 in extended (No-Necro Trix), it's 1 in Type 1. Welcome to the evolution some pro predicted at least a year ago.

This is one of the reasons Keeper is not The King any more. In addition running a combo-kill does allow you to free slots in the MD to add more carddraw, as you don't need as much creature-defense. As regular Keeper ca't do that, it's at quite a disadvantage.

Quote Zherbus / JP / Crazy Carl, any of those names could walk into a tourney sporting Sligh variants, and I’m willing to bet because they are good players, and will have done proper metagaming and the like, that they very much have a chance to come out on top.  it isn't because they are packing the most powerful deck in the world, it’s because they are experienced.

Well, I did that in Dülmen once (ok, I'm considering myself a good player. Call me arrogant or whatever you want ) and managed a 4:3, a possible 5:2, if I had played a better SB. But that isn't enough for T8ing and Sligh just is not as strong as Shining, Hulk or a lot of other decks. Playskill helps a lot, but you won't be placing good results solely because of it all the time.

Onto the question if Keeper is dead, well the Sideevent at Worlds were won by Keeper and it placed 3rd in Eindhoven on Saturday. That definitly tells us it isn't that dead (trust me, both fields where quite competetive). But even though there is no deck that dominates the format like FoF-Blue regular Keeper is not the best deck in the format for the first time since it's creation.
It hurts me to say this, as I love playing Keeper, but the deck  is not a tier one deck any more (screw you, tier debaters. It's just a simple word to say it's not on top any more).
It's still a very solid deck that will thrive with the right matchups and draws, but it is not the force it once was.

So I don't think Keeper is dead, but, as Setnakt said, I probably won't play it in tournament anytime soon.

/edit: Did write this offline and before jps last post. Therefor some stuff is repeated here. Sorry for that, didn't want to rewrite it all.

Quote I vehemently disagree.  Psychatog and Shining are not based on Weissman-style control at all.  They are based on the Necropotence strategy.

Well, I actually DO call Future Sight "Blue Necro" by myself for some time now....

/edit 2:
Ok, I'm sorry, I'm a moron. I KNEW Shining won Eindhoven because a) I was there and b) Kim is a friend of mine and played my exact listing. It was 5:30am or something here when I posted, I'll take that as my excuse. ARG! \n\n

[jpmeyer]

The 8/30/03 Eindhoven looks like it was won by The Shining.  Was there a different one not listed at morphling.de that was won with Keeper?

[Grendal]

Quote (jpmeyer @ Aug. 31 2003,22:30)The 8/30/03 Eindhoven looks like it was won by The Shining.  Was there a different one not listed at morphling.de that was won with Keeper?

Yes...

2003 T1 European Worlds

with Hulk Smash finishing an awesome 5th place, beaten by not only Keeper, but Super-Gro as well...

We can quote tournaments all day long, the fact is, on any given day, any good deck piloted by a good player can win.   :/

If only skill played more a part of this game than luck, but unfortunatly I would rather be lucky than good when it comes to Magic.

- Grendal

[Grendal]

Quote
I vehemently disagree.  Psychatog and Shining are not based on Weissman-style control at all.  They are based on the Necropotence strategy.  While it doesn't actually use Necropotence, the deck runs under the assumption that it will be drawing such a steady stream of cards that it can afford to trade cards (or possibly even give cards up) to stop the opponent's cards simply because they are drawing so many more.  Weissman, OTOH, is based on stabilizing and controlling the board and/or cards in hand (see Finding the Tinker Deck).

I thought Weissman was the one who came up with the whole theory of "Card Advantage" seems to me you are practicing his theory quite well.  

Quote
If you noticed, I did not say that Keeper was dead because of a lack of high finishes or because of the presence of bad matchups.  In fact, I didn't even say that Keeper was dead.  I merely pointed out that the deck's strategy is obsolete and therefore it SHOULD be dead unless someone can think of a way to let it keep its "Keeperness" without relying on one-card answers that aren't answers any more.

So infact you are saying its dead :/.   I don't think Keepers strategy is at all a bad strategy.   Hulk actually doesn't have the greatest matchup vs Dragon, where as the Keeper opponent has a lot better chance.   Had some bad reporting and bad rule calls on the part of the judges not happened at Gencon, it is higly likely we would not have even seen Hulk in the top 8, and possibly crowned a Dragon deck champion.   But that goes back to what I said earlier about i'd rather be lucky than good.

To Mon, Goblin Chief who said

Quote This is one of the reasons Keeper is not The King any more. In addition running a combo-kill does allow you to free slots in the MD to add more carddraw, as you don't need as much creature-defense. As regular Keeper ca't do that, it's at quite a disadvantage.

I don't believe I am calling Keeper king either.   I think with this current meta of decks, that we have a large variety of highly competitive decks, with no real deck emerging as the clear victor.   Keeper / Hulk / TnT / Staks / Tendrils...  basically pick your poison, its all good.


So yes... to all the naysayers about Keeper its not dead, and imo and the opinions of many it is still highly competive and still winning tourneys.   I am not about to doubt any of you that a deck needs to evolve.   But even since GenCon Keeper has evolved by leaps and bounds already.   I still stand behind my claim that decks like Hulk and Shinning are offsets of Keeper.   The shinning in particular that started off as (Combo-Keeper) but evolved into a more combo oriented deck, is still very much based around the premise of Keeper.

Out Draw
Out Counter
Out Play

That pretty much sums of what I think Keeper means.   There is no top deck right now...  (thats a good thing).

- Grendal

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

@Keeper and Eindhoven: I'm stupid. see the edit above.

@Grendal: Shining and Hulk are Keeperesque decks in the way that they are based on cardadvantage and are quite well fit to assimilate a Keeper-style of play for some time of the game. In their basic concepts and philosophy they really evolved into NecroDecks rather than being Keeper(Weissman)Decks any more. That article jp linked shows it quite well. They're exactly based around the concept of LauerPotence to just play more spells than the opponent, thus being able to even trade 1-3 with the opponent (in the opponents favor) instead of generating cardadvantage through favorable trades.

[Kerzkid11]

I dont want to sound offensive in any way, but I think that Zherbus has
customised keeper a little too much to suit "the perfect metagame". By "the
perfect metagame" I mean one where only the top accepted decks are played.

Now, I am targetting this at Zherbus because- people look up to him. If
Zherbus posts some changes to his deck, people will test these ideas, and
follow suit. Not only Zherbus has advocated such changes, but I'll use that as my example.

As of late, Keeper has been cutting down on the card-drawing. Zherbus'
"Disrupting Keeper" (That decklist isn't 100% accurate, last I heard
Impulse was in the Duress slot)
Lacks Skeletal Scrying, Stroke of Genius, Braingeyser, 2nd Future Sight,
and other, older forms such as Jademaye tome.

I think that cutting all this card draw in favor of other cards greatly
changes how the deck plays, with Keeper usually running on ~4 cards, or
maybe less.

Another change that has been made semi-recently is the Addition of Duress.
I don't this Duress is a very Keeper-esque card, only going 1 for 1 with
cards. Zherbus says it best:

Quote  -Duress - Trading one for one is good against a deck with a
comparable draw engine. However most other decks tend to draw more cards
than you assuming their engine works. Keeper can't always play the card
advantage game, so it wins off its bombs and solutions.

People's keeper builds today choose not to play the card advantage game,
and instead play cards that will try to take card advantage away from your
opponent. (Mox Monkey, Duress, possibly wasteland [making higher cc spells
dead])

I am not advocating playing Stroke of Genius, Braingeyser, and especially
Jademaye Tome in keeper right now, they were cut for good reason. I think
keeper needs to find a better card drawing engine, not just the
FoF/Recall/FS/Possibly Scrying combination.

I think the card that could really acieve this is Deep Analysis. Its
uncounterable more or less, and does a lot for its cost. In the control
mirror they are golden, and can be sided out in the aggro match.
Zherbus's Disrupting Keeper does admittedly horrible versus a lot of aggro.
Sligh, Stoopid Maddness, Sui, and the like all should roll it game one, and
Sligh has a less chance game 2, but still fair. This is an example of
"over-customising for a perfect metagame".

In a regular type one metagame, lets take syracuse (TMD II) for example.
This meta wasn't perfect, but still had an amazing density of good players
and good decks. Sligh was in abundance, and so was Suicide. These 2 aggro
decks which deckbuilders don't really have in mind when construcing,
thrived. I beleive a PT Funk deck Top 4'ed, along with a Sligh.

I think Zherbus was right on target in cutting duress for more
search/psudo-draw (not really card advantage, but you get it) in the form
of impulse. I, personnally, Like deep analysis better.

I played in a t1 power tourney this weekend, in a store that I had never
been to. Here's my keeper for a mixed meta:

(Notice, I have gone back maybe, 4 months of development in my build, which
is kinda funny. But I like it)

//Kill
1 Goblin Trenches
1 Morphling

//Counter
4 Mana Drain
4 Force of Will
1 Misdirection

//Draw
4 Brainstorm
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Fact or Fiction
1 Skeletal Scrying
1 Future Sight
1 Deep Analysis

//Tutor
3 Cunning Wish
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor

//Utility
1 Time Walk
1 Mind Twist
1 Yawgmoth's Will

//Removal
1 Balance
1 The Abyss
2 Swords to Plowshares

//Mana Sources
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
1 Island
1 City of Brass
3 Underground Sea
3 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island

//Sideboard
4 Red Elemental Blast
1 Circle of Protection: Red
1 Disenchant
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Fire/Ice ( Bad Card, expecting a worse meta then there was)
1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Skeletal Scrying
1 Coffin Purge
1 Misdirection
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Shattering Pulse
1 Aura Fracture

That is what I played on saturday. I think that 2 Deep analysis would be
better, along with 2 Power Kegs, or a Moat on the sideboard to bring in in
place of them vs. Aggro.

I think that extra card advantage ---> more answers really helps against
hulk, and It showed, me beating Hulk round 1, 2-1.

Abyss is still great in a mixed/unknown meta, and it definitly is pretty
solid against Tog, not saying it beats them but makes them waste a counter
or a cunning wish, which is fine.

Overall, Keeper isn't dead. Its just in the middle of adapting. Duress has
been found to be a poor choice, as with many of other possibilies in the
past weeks. Keeper will always be around, its just having an identity
crisis right now.

[Eastman]

Quote The difference that I am making in my post that I feel separates it from the older "Keeper is dead" posts is that the other ones focused more on things like bad matchups or hate.  What I am saying is that the strategy is simply obsolete, and this obsolescence in the deck's technology is what is currently making Keeper bad, yet any attempts to try to shore up the holes are turning it into a different deck.

I'd like to see some evidence that the strategy is as you say 'obsolete'. Several months worth of tournament results showing Keeper posting an unacceptable number of T8 showings for the number of properly built decks played would be excellent evidence. Unfortunately these results don't exist as of now, but perhaps if you'd wait a few months the showings might turn in your favor.

If you have any other ideas for empyrical evidence, I'm all ears.

Quote If you noticed, I did not say that Keeper was dead because of a lack of high finishes or because of the presence of bad matchups.  In fact, I didn't even say that Keeper was dead.  I merely pointed out that the deck's strategy is obsolete and therefore it SHOULD be dead unless someone can think of a way to let it keep its "Keeperness" without relying on one-card answers that aren't answers any more.

AHHH I see! You recognize that the deck is still performing well, but feel that it 'SHOULD' be losing because you say it is obsolete! And these speculations are worthy of the E.V. forum?


Granted this is an interesting discussion.. but don't tell us an entire archetype is obsolete because you say so. Look at serious T1 articles (perhaps ask fellow Paragons Smmenen, Azhrei, or Rakso) to see that bold and potentially important statements (as yours is) are usually backed up by something other than the author's opinion.


I'm not saying that you are wrong JP (and others), but you'd do wonders to your credibility if you supplied us with a little bit of background information.

Otherwise we can't have any useful discussion.

[Rogue]

@eastman: I think JP meant that any player who took that keeper deck to a high finish could have done equally well, if not better, with a deck such as tog.

Just because a deck is winning does not make it appropriate over other choices, as oftentimes we remain with decks simply because they are doing well, and have a tendency to not evolve and use superior choices.

That said, I totally agree with JP. Any control deck in the format can plug in a proven ak/intuition/deep analysis draw engine where merchant scroll and brainstorm are superior to as opposed to their use in other decks because of more targets and shuffling effects, respectively. Current keeper decks are running 3-5 draw cards and 3 cunning wish, with 1-3 tutors. The shining is actually even more inherently broken, capable of running card draw as a win condition, as well as 4 yawgmoth's will. If you consider workshop prison decks to be control, those have very serious potential to drop their hands by turn 3, then start drawing more cards almost immediately.

That said, keeper-probably-isn't TOTALLY obsolete. Odds are someone will evolve it to be a better deck. After all, the deck currently looks nothing like it did pre TnT, and many of us called it dead then too. However, not only would I not run it, I see almost no reason for anyone to, as it simply doesnt do anything that any of the other control decks in the format do better. That doesnt mean it can't win. It just means that most players probably will, and probably should, choose to play other decks.

[Azhrei]

IMO, this is all going back to what I said a while back-- non-hybrid archetypes are increasingly weaker as the format impoves... and as a corollary, decks that lack the potential to "just win" with some regularity. Keeper can have broken draws, but these don't happen that often and the deck is not designed around them the way something like Mask or Stax is. Keeper has no real proactive threats in the first few turns and I think that is what makes it weak currently.

Hail the Skull!

[CHA1N5]

Quote (Rogue @ Aug. 31 2003,22:36)That said, keeper-probably-isn't TOTALLY obsolete. ...   it simply doesnt do anything that any of the other control decks in the format do better.

Um, it sounds like you've just defined obsolete.     Seriously, Keeper is a horse and buggy...  it will still get you to the store, but...

[jpmeyer]

While I wasn't planning on using tourney finishes as a basis for discussion, if you really want any for reference, I looked at the T8 listings in Smmenen's most recent SCG article and Keeper was making T8s about once every three tournaments, which doesn't seem like that strong of a performance.  Because it is obviously has not been putting up the results in the last 6 months like Keeper was last year, when it easily the best deck around, I'd say that it's relatively safe to assume that Keeper needs some form of evolution.  Unfortunately, I was having trouble figuring out how to improve Keeper without it undergoing "Dojo Drift" (to use an old term) towards either Shining or Hulk, this brought about this question of how to improve Keeper without losing its "fundamental Keeperness."

Next, we need to set aside the mana (and also the Wasteland issue, which is a bit of a moot point since the fetchlands have made it so that Keeper has fairly solid mana,) and the "obviously good" cards:

Mana Drain
Force of Will
Brainstorm
Yawgmoth's Will
Mind Twist
Ancestral Recall
Fact or Fiction
Time Walk
Cunning Wish
Demonic Tutor
Mystical Tutor
Merchant Scroll

After this there are a few "metagamey" slots, such as the choice of pinpoint removal, the victory condition, or the choice of counters 9-12

You'll notice a lot of common Keeper cards that I didn't include, such as:

The Abyss
Balance
Gorilla Shaman

Other than Morphling, those 5 cards are based around sweeping away huge numbers of cards.  However, if you look at the decks that I listed only Mud actually has cards that are focused on generating card advantage with cards that don't draw cards (although it also runs card drawing,) and unlike Keeper's, the cards are fairly nonsymmetrical (such as Tangle Wire) or are not dependent on the opponent's strategy (such as Abyss in Keeper.)

This can be emphasized if we assume a set of "the best decks."  I'm not going to bother putting them in tiers because that would make the following analysis than it needs to be, but the following are pretty commonly agreed on:

Control: Keeper, Tog, Shining, Mud, Phid decks
Combo: Long.dec, Rector decks, Tendrils decks, Dragon
Aggro: Mask decks, Gobbos

Against those decks, it can be difficult at best (against control,) and dangerous at worst (such as against combo and Gobbos) to cast Balance and almost completely pointless to cast Abyss.  Without these to generate card advantage, the only real other way that a control deck can generate card advantage is through draw, and as I've stated above, the two best draw engines in Type 1 are Future Sight and Intuition, and both of which are best supplemented by the Tog and Shining kills.

[Rogue]

@Chains-That's basically true, but if I call it obsolete, I generally think of that as meaning unplayable. It is playable, but basically the weakest deck of its genre. Also, if I say it is obsolete because of better options, that basically means decks like, say, fish could be considered obsolete because they lack the explosiveness of vengeur mask. This is fairly obviously not true, and I wanted to make sure that the distinction was made in order to avoid flaming/misunderstanding.

That said, the horse and buggy comment is basically spot on.

[Eastman]

Quote
I'm not saying that you are wrong JP (and others), but you'd do wonders to your credibility if you supplied us with a little bit of background information.

Otherwise we can't have any useful discussion.

This is still just a lot of speculation.


Repeating everything said here a few extra times doesn't give it the ring of truth though I admire your persistence.

Quote Keeper was making T8s about once every three tournaments, which doesn't seem like that strong of a performance.

Quote  I did not say that Keeper was dead because of a lack of high finishes or because of the presence of bad matchups.

Contradicting yourself isn't going to convince us to believe you either.\n\n

[DerangedParrot]

I am not a T1 people.  However, I do have a question I'd like to ask you.

For those people who defend keeper:

Why do you play keeper instead of hulk or shining?  Now I don't want to hear people arguing with jp about shit- I do think he's right, but this is outside of that- Why do YOU, yes YOU, still play keeper.  If you defend keeper and aren't playing it, then you are a savage liar and don't mean what you say at all.

I just want to hear some personal reasons.  In my opinion, there is no compelling reason to still play keeper.  I think we should move from whether or not any random fool should play keeper to whether or not you should play keeper if you want to win.

The easiest way to show obselescence, though, is going to be to assume the deck is fine and then find a contradiction.  So let's see if we can find it.

[erik]

Calm down Eastman, this is a theoretical discussion not a pissing contest. Keeper IS a good deck, no one is denying that, and we all know that an experienced player can win tourneys with it. The point is that Keeper is the best deck of a school in deckbuilding that is (or has already) becoming outdated. It's like having the best swordfighters in the world when your neighbours have all discovered gunpowder. Playing keeper again after a month of hulk/shining/long testing really gave me this feeling, no matter how efficient those plows and tutors and morphlings and whatnot are, they are optimized to win in a way that is more cumbersome than that of "necro"-type decks. You are playing the slow game, hoping to win through efficient answers (as was said earlier). But there is no focus, your gameplan does not intertwine with your kill like tog/shining does. And because you are gunning for the lategame you have to adapt to what your opponent does without giving up too much card-advantage, as your pure carddraw is sporadic.

Unlike Tog, you can't use your FoW's for tempo and unlike the Shining your wishes generally fetch things that foil your opponent's strategy instead of furthering your own. Against other decks that follow the old threat/solution thinking (most aggro to be honest) this is fine, because your bombs will push you ahead over time. But what if there's no time? We have to accept that Tendrils, Tog and Dreadnought are the best kill cards in t1 and that old staples like Morphling, Hypnotic and Ophidian are becoming the Juzáms of today. As Mon said, why take 5+ turns to set up and execute your kill when you can switch from control to kill in one turn?

[theorigamist]

Quote It's like having the best swordfighters in the world when your neighbours have all discovered gunpowder.

That's the best metaphore I've heard in a while to describe Keeper's situation.  And I completely agree.  I think the most tuned, perfect list of Keeper would still lack the potency of other decks.  

I think other decks that play a fast game force Keeper to match their own tempo, which it can't.  And, furthermore, Keeper is trying to match them with answers, but it has few threats of its own.  My experience with Keeper, although it's limited, basically made me feel like Keeper just sat there, digging for answers and counters and removal so that you could take control of the game.  And that would work really well if your opponent wasn't playing four or so threats per turn while you did it.  I think Zherbus's disruption Keeper is by far the best, because it works to slow the opponent down to match your slow speed.  But I don't think that's enough.  I think if you're going to try to slow the opponent down, it should be until they're slower than you.  I fully appreciate that mana denial Keeper gives you more threats, but it doesn't give you more speed or power.  Meanwhile, other decks crap out threats all over the place.  Then they draw a new hand at the end of your turn.  You have to deal with their threats, counter or match their card drawing (which you can't), and at the same time win counter wars which they can do better than you because they can afford the card disadvantage of Force of Wills better than you.

I've tried taking Keeper the other way.  Instead of adding card drawing and utility which evolves it into Hulk or Shining as some of you have said, I've tried to up the threats and other components of the deck that slow the opponent down enough for you to match them.  I ended up with a mediocre hate deck, which Team Mean Deck tells us can't survive.

I don't, however, think Keeper is dead.  I think it is a sub-par choice when you can obviously put together a better deck.  But as long as people keep playing it and winning with it, I will not call it dead or obsolete.  I just think it's no longer one of the best decks (call it top tier, or whatever, it doesn't matter).  Any tier 1.5, 2, 3, etc. deck can still perform well in the right metagame, so I think Keeper will survive for a while yet.

[Eastman]

Quote  Keeper IS a good deck, no one is denying that, and we all know that an experienced player can win tourneys with it.

When someone says that a decks style is obsolete, or compares it to a Bow and Arrow/Horse and Buggy in a now modern age, they give the impression (an impression that WILL be accepted as fact by the hundreds of people who will read this) that the deck isn't good anymore. I do not believe that an individual can say:

1. This is completely obsolete (or 'becoming' obsolete as it were).
2. This is still good

and back both of these statements in fact or otherwise NON-circumstantial/speculative evidence.

I have asked that some such evidence be brought forward. I have met nothing but additional speculation with a generous spamming of the favorite 'obsolesence'.

Granted we have a fine sounding argument from a lot of obviously intelligent individuals, but without a firm backing in fact we will not be able to come to any conclusion nor will we make any progress in our understanding of this deck or the format. As I said, we cannot have any useful discussion here. Perhaps this thread should be closed.

[DerangedParrot]

Quote Granted we have a fine sounding argument from a lot of obviously intelligent individuals, but without a firm backing in fact we will not be able to come to any conclusion nor will we make any progress in our understanding of this deck or the format.

Personally I think it's self-evident that hulk is Just Better© than keeper.

Also, we cannot get a firm backing in fact on a message board.  Admittedly we're just talking.  If we had a real team that could pump out playtest numbers, I'm sure we'd see what JP and I are saying would happen- Keeper is not the deck to play.

All I know is that I played against JP's dragon keeper for like two hours with hulk.  He won at most one game.  I remember having zero cards in hand and him with a dragon on the table and me with no tog once, but all the other games I just mashed.  And his deck is strictly better than keeper too becuase of the draw engine.

Like last exended season, at first Oath and Tog had equal numbers, but then Oath disappeared and Tog grew.  Tog and Oath are the same deck, but Tog has a better kill.  Sound familiar?

Like, Keeper before was the deck that most effectively put all the format's best cards in one deck.  Now, keeper is not the deck that most effectively puts all the format's best cards in one deck.  Why are we playing it then?  Please, tell us.  To those who defend keeper: DO YOU PLAY IT IN TOURNAMENTS?  That's what I want to hear.  I don't want to hear theory.  Do you play it.  Why or why not.  No more "omg ur not backing urself up lol heh."

On a random note, as an exclusively nonT1 player, I find it fascinating to hear things like

Quote I just think it's no longer one of the best decks (call it top tier, or whatever, it doesn't matter).  Any tier 1.5, 2, 3, etc. deck can still perform well in the right metagame, so I think Keeper will survive for a while yet.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would you play a deck if you KNEW it wasn't the best one?  This makes no sense at all to me!  Assuming card access, which might be a bigger factor in T1, why would you play a strictly inferior deck?  In true competitive formats(defined as those that qualify you for the pro tour), strictly inferior decks simply don't get played becuase they are bad and people want to win.  Do you not want to win?  Is fun a higher cause than winning?  Do you just not care?  Do you not have the cards?  Please help me understand, becuase I sure don't.

[Eastman]

1. I'm not defending keeper. I'm not going to discuss it. This topic would make a nice essay (read : JP?) but is far too theoretical for a useful discussion.

Quote Personally I think it's self-evident that hulk is Just Better© than keeper

I think Parrot sums up a lot of what has been said pretty well. He very well may be right, BUT

We can't make any progress in this debate. The replies have generally been 'I think X' and 'I think Y'.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Quote When someone says that a decks style is obsolete, or compares it to a Bow and Arrow/Horse and Buggy in a now modern age, they give the impression (an impression that WILL be accepted as fact by the hundreds of people who will read this) that the deck isn't good anymore.

Well, I think that metapher was used in not such a radical way. Think about the invention of Gunpowder: Even 300 years later, the basic weapon used was still an evolved version of the sword with pistols used as backup weapons. What makes that metaphor that fitting, IMO, is that the same thing is gonna happen to Keeper, IF I AM PREDICTING RIGHT. It will be around and good for some time, but there are superior weapons which will some time in the future really make it obsolete.

Quote Like last exended season, at first Oath and Tog had equal numbers, but then Oath disappeared and Tog grew.  Tog and Oath are the same deck, but Tog has a better kill.  Sound familiar?

To be picky, Oath just evolved into Turbo-Land

Quote WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would you play a deck if you KNEW it wasn't the best one?  This makes no sense at all to me!  Assuming card access, which might be a bigger factor in T1, why would you play a strictly inferior deck?  In true competitive formats(defined as those that qualify you for the pro tour), strictly inferior decks simply don't get played becuase they are bad and people want to win.  Do you not want to win?  Is fun a higher cause than winning?  Do you just not care?  Do you not have the cards?  Please help me understand, becuase I sure don't.

People, even Pros, DO play Zombies in ONBC, for example, even though that definitly isn't the best deck in the format. The reason they do that is simple: They think the deck is not the best but reasonably good and THAT DECK IS THE ONE THAT FITS THEIR PLAYSTYLE BEST. As was said by many many (Pro)Players, if there are many viable (= tier 1 and 2 decks), don't play what is considered the best deck, but play the deck of these that fits your playstyle best.

Btw, we ARE playing T1, and there isn't as much money on the line here usually and the rating means nothing besides posing, so you can risk playing a deck because you like it once in a while, even though you know there are better ones. I accept and like that freedom .

[Jacob Orlove]

Actually, when someone like JP or either Steve says something about type 1, I know that it's backed up with many hours of playtesting against some of the best opponents in type 1. They don't just make random arguments based on theory, but at the same time, they aren't going to say "in testing, keeper won exactly X% of it's games"; in this forum, they shouldn't have to. When they say "I think Y", they aren't just pulling their ideas out of thin air, but if you don't believe them, just do your own testing.

Quote WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would you play a deck if you KNEW it wasn't the best one?  This makes no sense at all to me!  Assuming card access, which might be a bigger factor in T1, why would you play a strictly inferior deck?  In true competitive formats(defined as those that qualify you for the pro tour), strictly inferior decks simply don't get played becuase they are bad and people want to win.

Well, if you expect the environment to favor certain decks, you might take the risk of running a deck that doesn't do well against one of the top decks, but does better against the other. I don't know any recent T2 examples, but Turbostasis and the Stupid Green Deck illustrate this concept. It's possible that there will be a very specific environment where Keeper is the best choice; it's just that in general, it probably isn't.

Furthermore, skill can make a tremendous difference. Would Weismman do as well with Hulk as he would with his "Keeper"? I doubt it. Some current Keeper players may be in the same situation: they've "invested" a significant amount of playtesting to Keeper, and they just don't have the time to prepare as adequately with anything else.

[DerangedParrot]

Yay!  You've all said what I wanted you to say: everything EXCEPT that they think that keeper is the best deck.

That was what I was fishing for.  People like JP and Smmenen will always be the best T1 players becuase they take a pro tour-style attitude to a format that is largely played by casual players.  On a side note, the correct definition of casual player is person who didn't show up with winning the tournament as their only goal.  So PTQ's have a reasonable amount of casual players too, but in T1 tourneys you have retarted amounts of people who don't care if they win or not.  Along that vein, they won't go find the best deck- they'll just run whatever.

I guess that was what I was trying to say.

I would argue however that the best pros do not play what fits their style in important tournaments- they play the best decks.  Kai has repeatedly expressed distaste for the attack step, but what did he play at London?  Goblins.  Jon Finkel and the entire deadguy squad did that at worlds 1998 too.  It's the lower-tier pros who play what they want.  The good pros will find the deck that wins the most, learn all the matchups, and then go win.

[theorigamist]

Quote WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would you play a deck if you KNEW it wasn't the best one?  This makes no sense at all to me!  Assuming card access, which might be a bigger factor in T1, why would you play a strictly inferior deck?  In true competitive formats(defined as those that qualify you for the pro tour), strictly inferior decks simply don't get played becuase they are bad and people want to win.  Do you not want to win?  Is fun a higher cause than winning?  Do you just not care?  Do you not have the cards?  Please help me understand, becuase I sure don't.

Not everybody knows or thinks that Keeper is strictly inferior.  Plenty of people still, and will, stand behind Keeper.  Also, don't forget that decks like Parfait, although bad, will always be played simply because they can be powerful, they can win, they can be fun to play, and those decks have their own following that will not give up on them, no matter how bad they get.  Regardless of the lack of logic in playing inferior decks, you know as well as anybody that it does happen.