2004: The Type One Metagame

[Smmenen]

Ok.  So Long is dead.  I konw that I am going to continue working on two developmental decks - but what changes?

Chalice of the Void - this is still an awesome card, but obviously gets weaker.  it still functions to destroy cheap aggro decks, but is no longer the potent combo destruction it once was.  I expect to continue to see this card in Workshop decks being set at 2 to wreck control.

Blood Moon - Best Card EVAR.  Every deck needs ways around Blood Moon.  Since Dragon is now obviously the best combo deck come Jan 1st - this card has serious wrecking potential.  Blood Moon seriously gave Richard problems at KC with Dragon - and if blood moon can come down before Dragon gets a turn, well its much more difficult to get Dragon in the 'yard.  

Workshop Prison - no real change in position except it gets weaker by virtue of having trouble against Both Keeper and Dragon - which are both really solid.  

Fish - This deck really gained alot.  It loses both the Long and the Madness matchup and now gets to face more Keeper and Dragon.  Woot.

Thoughts?

Steve

[bebe]

I think that we may also see more Rector based decks and possibly Druid decks. Rector/Trix was quite powerful and can still be a force. I won't say more about Druid decks as we Canadians are working on an ideal deck list.

As for hate - Chalice and Blood Moon will certainly be played but I expect to see a lot of Crypts in the sideboards of decks - possibly Purges as well as they are Wishable.

Fish has alweays had a soft spot in my heart and is a very strong deck but don't keep writing off aggro, Steve. There are a number of Survival based aggro builds that can compete and some simple R/G and W/G decks that are also strong if properly meta gamed.

Workshop had to contend with Dragon and Keeper anyway. It has survived and will continue to be a good deck with some tweaking for the meta. I think Dragon poses a greater problem than Keeper for this deck.

[Smmenen]

Oh I definately do not write off Aggro - I think SpoilsMask is very strong.  My only concern about aggro concerns budget aggro's viability becuase of Chalice.  Stacker has enough disruption to be a metagame contender.  

Excellent point on SBs - Everyone should have Crypts or Purges I think.  Just as Rack and Ruin will probably continue to populate SBs.  So Workshop Prison is Out is what we are saying.  I agree with this, I think.  Does Blood Moon TnT have a chance?

Steve

[Dante]

With regards to Dragon, with the abundance of 5 strip decks (Fish, Keeper, most Hulks, non-madness aggro, prison), maybe the best dragon for this environment is a mono-black build like Bebe's?  Having thought about it a lot since my 3-3 mulligan-filled performance from Saturday, maybe I'm just overacting to a bad day (since my losses were Long, Super Gro, and Dragon, with 0 wastelands among them).  Maybe I'm just babbling...

Bill

Edit @ steve - I was thinking that earlier when I saw the BR list, Blood Moon is great against Dragon, Gro, Control, man-land decks, etc.  Hell, a control deck with 3-4 scepters could even run it.\n\n

[bebe]

Ah, welcome to the dark side. Mono black can easily work around Blood Moon and if you main deck VERDANTS as I keep advising, you have solid match ups down the line. I never posted my Spoils list ( just alluded to it in dicemanx's primer) because I was hoping Spoils would be restricted. No such luck and now that I am tired of deck I have to find ways to beat it.
Which actually begs the question Steve - do you think Hulk and gro variants are decent meta game choices? Certainly they play like aggro/combo and can pack solutions for Dragon and control.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I think as soon as Dragon started posting consistent strong results, and Chalice Keeper became big, everyone was thinking Urphid in the back of their mind.  We'll see if it proves flexible enough given all of the innovation that is sure to come.

As for chalice owning aggro, I disagree.  When I think of aggro, I think of Madness, TnT, Mask, Gobbo, and Suicide (I know, aggro-control).  Chalice is really only solid against Gobbo and certain Mask builds.  What really hoses aggro, is scepter with a decent imprint.

As far as general metagame response, it should be quite positive, with all of the major strategies and hybrid-strategies having viable choices.

[Thug]

When dragon is probably left as the best combo, it's also very possible that it will be totally hated out, and since rector dies to the same cards (stifle, crypt) is not very likely that it will show up again.

Chalice stays a very good cards, but it will loose it's function as silver bullet against long/tendrils and therefore most likely will onyl see play in decks based around it (MUD?).

Blood Moon already was a uber-powerful cards as Arthur and me tried to show last tournament. It will only become better and something that has too be taken very serious when constructing a deck.

Workshop prison has too be adapted too, Sphere lost most of it's power and Blood Moon seems a better option.

Koen

[Hyperion]

Many are writing off Madness as being dead by virtue of the fact that Lion's Eye Diamond has been restricted. I am reluctant to make any strong claims at this point in time because I purposely avoided heavy testing with 1-LED Madness until the formal announcement of its restriction was made. As long as Bazaar is unrestricted, it should retain some semblance of competitiveness.

It was a central card in the deck - but Madness is much less reliant on it than Long. Its loss of 3 LEDs is partially offset because its worst matchup (Long) is gone too. The Workshop prison matchup will now be more difficult but other than that, I will postulate that, properly designed, the difficulty of its other matchups will either remain the same, orpossibly even improve. I'll have more on that to say after I can provide adequate testing results.\n\n

[erik]

Rector dies to the same hate that Dragon does, but what about TPS? With Long gone, it's probably the fastest combo deck around, and it's untouched by the new b&r list (ironically it uses exactly one copy of burning wish). If Dragon is the new deck to gun for I think TPS can dodge a lot of the combo-hate slots in people's sidebards, and ever since Chalice became legal I've been having better irl results with TPS than Long solely because of FoW. Do any of the Dutch still play it, and if not; why have you abandoned it? What do you think should be changed for the post-Long meta?

[MoreFling]

I think TPS is still very viable, and probably will actually be able to squeeze back in, with people letting their guard down now that Long.dec is gone.

Only time will tell, but I got a few nice decklists ready to try out.
However, first, I still have a december tournament lined up which I should probably play Long now that I still can

[Milton]

I really like the new TnT as a good aggro deck, along with Fish, Mask and Suicide.  Suicide and Fish can easily splash red for Bloodmoon or Fire/Ice or Shaman or whatever.  Sligh seems dead.

Dragon is the combo deck to beat, but control has a pretty good chance with 4 Forces, 4 Wastes, 1 Strip and Stifles.

I like Phid as the control deck to beat.  In regards to aggro-control Landstill and Hulk are phenomonal aggro-control decks that have very good match-ups with Long leaving.  Hulk with maindeck Deeds seeems very good right now.

Prison decks?  Mud is still there and it is still very good, but it has lost a little in the wake of innovation from other decks.  It's not much of a shock anymore either.  People are prepared for Welders.  And, how powerful is a first turn Sphere against control?

Keeper?  Hell, I don't know.  Maybe.  It seems like Scepter isn't enough to push this deck over the edge.  Neither is Decree.  Multi-colored control should be Hulk, it's just faster, has better threats and is more focused.  But, I like the innovation I'm seeing in Keeper lately.  It just doesn't seem to be enough.

Just about everyone is back to 4 wastelands, 1 strip maindeck, which slows down the game nicely.  That leads me to believe that this winter will be more control dominated.

[TracerBullet]

I personally think Fish loses out on all this.  Fish exists as a counter to the Stax/WelderMUD/Long decks that were ever so present before the restrictions.  Fish does NOT do well in a field of Suicide/TnT/Mask, and is moderately ok to bad against Hulk/Keeper/anything with Deed.

All told, I think the Fish players will realize that their metagame deck is now outdated to the current metagame.

[MolotDET]

Damn, it is about time we had a thread that jumped out as high quality.

Moved to Extreme Vintage

Do you have any idea how long it has been since I actually felt something should be moved here?

Thanks for this guys.  Lets try to keep this one nice ok?

I will be watching this and I am going to delete any "go play 1.5," type of comments.

Mo.

[Milton]

Quote I personally think Fish loses out on all this.  Fish exists as a counter to the Stax/WelderMUD/Long decks that were ever so present before the restrictions.  Fish does NOT do well in a field of Suicide/TnT/Mask, and is moderately ok to bad against Hulk/Keeper/anything with Deed.

All told, I think the Fish players will realize that their metagame deck is now outdated to the current metagame.

That's a good point.  I do, however, think that Bloodmoon in Fish opens up some pretty nice options against TnT/Hulk/Keeper.  Also, Deed is big again as the game slows down a little bit.  But a slow game really favors Fish, which is a pretty quick deck.

Maybe Misdirection becomes a better card with the recent restrictions.   It's certianly good against most of the field and can be boarded out for Stifles against Dragon, Hulk, whatever.

How good is Stifle right now?

[Eastman]

Lets not forget landstill... a lot of good things have been seen from this deck in our testing here in Hadley thus far.

I don't think Chalice keeper is going to retain its potency with long  out of the meta. Although I'm still working on the deck there are a few other directions keeper may want to head in soon (increasing the mana-denial and shoring up the dragon match with maindeck stifles is looking REALLY good right now).

I concur with whats been said about Blood Moon. The Urphid style decks could sweep up this meta. As we're already seeing in NE the potency of Isochron Scepter as an alternate draw engine may be the driving force in the success of a new Urphid variant.

Overall the new meta looks very healthy and pretty exciting.

I can add this:
Dragon is strong and resilient. It will not be hated out of the meta easily, and should not be taken lightly by any means.

Workshop prison decks are in need of some serious updating even beyond the obvious tweaks (lets get those skullcaps out of wMud... mind's eye has been legal for months) . Look to see new stacker/mud variants gaining strength and popularity.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

Quote (TracerBullet @ Dec. 01 2003,20:29)I personally think Fish loses out on all this.  Fish exists as a counter to the Stax/WelderMUD/Long decks that were ever so present before the restrictions.  Fish does NOT do well in a field of Suicide/TnT/Mask, and is moderately ok to bad against Hulk/Keeper/anything with Deed.

All told, I think the Fish players will realize that their metagame deck is now outdated to the current metagame.

I am a firm believer that fish can be metagamed to handle anything.  To be perfectly honest, I feel that TnT can be metagamed to handle anything as well, as can most other decks that are inherently strong.  You have to realize that hate cards are incredibly powerful in type 1 and any deck that packs solid hate directed at the decks it plays will have a decent shot at winning matches that it "shouldn't". I put that in quotations because of so many of us still cling to this outdated "rock, paper, scissors" notion of the metagame triangle.

If I maindeck chalice of the void in tnt, my long matchup will improve and I can even win matches.  Combo does not beat aggro in this case.

If I maindeck plague bearers in my keeper, my Gay fish matchup will improve and I can even win matches.  Aggro-control does not beat control in this case.

If I maindeck 4 swords to plowshares and 4 naturalize maindeck in my calloftheherdperniciousdeed.d ec, my dragon matchup will improve and I can even win matches.


I think to say that X deck will be bad now is only fair when X deck is so inflexible that it doesn't have access to good hate.  This might be the case for a deck like stompy (and I don't even know if I would go that far) because it has to be so singleminded that it cannot even run spells that cost more than 1 mana, but it is certainly not the case in decks with access to as many cards as fish, or tnt, or venguer masque, or keeper, etc.


And as one of the top fish players on this site, I must disagree with your assessment of its role within the metagame to begin with.  I wouldn't write the entire archetype off as just a metagame deck not only for the reasons I mentioned above, but also because several builds have emerged and each has its strengths and weaknesses within the metagame.  For example the Gay/r build is actually a very good choice for a field of hulk or sui while the original mono-u build is as great against keeper as it has always been.

I guess you could argue that fish is a metagame deck because it packs hate cards like null rod that are only good in certain matchups, but the same can be said of just about any strategy that isn't pure combo/aggression.  Even duress would be sub-optimal in a metagame full of stompy.


I guess to sum up, what will be good in 2004 will depend largely on what hate each deck has access to and what combo/aggression strategy is considered to be the deck to beat.  Anything with an inherently strong base that can pack solid hate is a contender.

[Smmenen]

PTW, are you ready to work on Neo-Academy?  I am convinced that it can be something more than just the whore it used to be now that we more fully understand the archetype and now that the best win condition imaginable exists for it.  The only problem may be that its just too slow - which is why it probably needs Force of Will and quite a bit of blue spells to facilitate it.  Diminshing Returns anyone?  

Steve

[Matt The Great]

Where does Mindslaver fit into this?

[Smmenen]

I think its tier one.  But that may be based more upon the composition of the deck than the strength of Mindslaver itself.  However, of all the formats, Mindslaver is most broken in type one becuase type one has the most opportunites for decks to killthemselves: Necro, Bargain, Consult, Spoils, LimDUl's Vault, just comboing out with Dragon, Long, etc - or just really abusing their board.  Against a Smokestack Slaver makes Stax a one sided Chaos Orb.  Please don't ask for decklists though - its still in testing.

Steve\n\n

[Kaervek]

Quote When dragon is probably left as the best combo, it's also very possible that it will be totally hated out, and since rector dies to the same cards (stifle, crypt) is not very likely that it will show up again.

Quote I think TPS is still very viable, and probably will actually be able to squeeze back in, with people letting their guard down now that Long.dec is gone.

Couldn't agree more. The Perfect Storm, a.k.a. Dutch Tendrils is not hit by these restrictions at all. Smmenen already stated that Chalice is weaker now; there's less incentive to play it. Perfect. Also: the rumor that 'a card' was going to get banned (Will) proved false. TPS was created many months ago partially because we feared the restriction of LED and Wish in the previous B/R round. Heck, one of the last versions actually played ONE Wish already The design still stands and perhaps it will now recieve the attention it deserves.

[Milton]

The concept of "hate" is certianly interesting.  I think the pre-restriction meta has been one of hate, mostly due to Long and WMUD.  The hate has been mostly artifact or mana destruction to slow down the game and give the aggro or contol player time to set up.  This is an interesting cycle.  At GenCon, hate wasn't really what it is now.  Very few people played Wastelands and their hate cards were in the board and would come out in games 2 and 3.  Now, everybody seems to have some hate.  Even Hulk, which for a time had no Wastes or Strips has gone to packing these most basic hate cards.

The consensus so far seems to be that decks that can "hate" will survive.  Dragon seems to be the deck that needs to be hated the most now.  But, isn't it possible that with the removal of Long that "hate" could be pushed to the back burner in favor of speed and focus?  Maybe Mask and Dragon, two highly focused decks which are sometimes too fast to hate, could be the direction the metagame is going.  Maybe hate will become obsolete with the absence of a dominant deck.

[Smmenen]

I'd like to dispute your notions about "hate" and then suggest a way that "hate" might be viable in the currrent t1 meta.

First: Hate was not successful against long.  About the best two cards were Null Rod and Sphere (followed closely by Chalice for 1).  And the only one that I think was really a true threat to Long's future dominance of the metagame was Sphere.   Here is why, Stick with me here, Null Rod was fundamentally flawed from the get go.  If you were playing with Null Rod maindeck, chances were you weren't going to play it until turn 2 - and unless you were playing Fish, you probably lacked Countermagic or good non-wasteland disruption.  Long players woudl never let Wasteland destroy them becuase they would just not drop a land unless they a) had another or b) it was expendible becuase I was going to win this turn.  If you were playing first you had a about a 30-40% chance against no disruption to just win on turn one.  Otherwise, you can find Duress to win.  And even if your opponent for some reason gets a second turn, there is no gaurantee that they'll even have one of their there Null Rods.

Chalice: Chalice suffers from one problem that Null Rod does but not as Severe.  Chalice requires two mana on turn one to really hose long.  The difference of Sphere is that Workshop decks ALWAYS have two mana on turn one and so the card is a huge threat.  But EVEN IF these cards resolve, there are FOUR burning wishes in the maindeck - and you only need 2 lands to cast Burning Wish and Primitive Justice the subsequent turn.  Not that hard if you have Tutors and Brainstorms.  

Also, Blood Moon was awful agianst Long and no smart long player would ever walk into Stifle.

That said, what about hate in the current metagame?  Hate as a concept for a deck is fundamentally flawed becuase it lacks power.  Hate decks may do well within the scope of their targets - but becuase they lack the inherent synergy of a really powerful deck becuase they are composed of hate, they will lose to random decks, AND even lose to a more poweful deck they are aimed at.

HOWEVER, I think a combination of Hate Cards is very viable in the current Type One metagame for one huge reason: If you can fit hate cards into a very strong deck concept that is inherently powerful - like if you can fit Blood Moons into an established deck - then Hate may be very viable, just not as a viable concept in and of itself.

Stephen Menendian

[bebe]

Quote
Maybe Mask and Dragon, two highly focused decks which are sometimes too fast to hate, could be the direction the metagame is going.  Maybe hate will become obsolete with the absence of a dominant deck.

I don't believe they are too fast to hate at all. I've played Dragon in tournaments for months and have been successfully hated out a number of times. That is not to say that you cannot stall a bit and play your own disruption before going off. A turn one Crypt and StPs and Stifles are deadly for Dragon combined with Wastes and Strips. But the match up against Dragon is winnable. Same for Mask. Playing a turn one Null Rod is more than feasible.
In fact now more than ever, hate decks can compete. I think though we need to define what a hate deck is. We are really talking about traditional builds that include answers for combo without breaking the original intent of the deck. A good example is G/w Stompy that packs Naturalize, Hidden Guerillas, Wax/Wane and StP as part of its arsenal but is still capable of doing a lot of damage quickly. The cards are useful on their own against any number of different decks so the integrity of ther build does not suffer.
Another would be Scepter/control.  Although strictly speaking this does not look like a hate deck it can pack hate along with counters. In fact it needs to pack solutions for Dragon, WMud and Mask.
Looking at lists of decks that have won tournaments I often find comments criticising a build that lloks at first glance weak until you see the hate cards that made it tick. Blood Moon, B2B, StP, Null Rods, Naturalize, Chalice, Spheres and other cards often are the key to their success and enable them to compete even in today's speedier meta.

steve beat me to it.\n\n

[Eastman]

Quote Another would be Scepter/control.  Although strictly speaking this does not look like a hate deck it can pack hate along with counters. In fact it needs to pack solutions for Dragon, WMud and Mask.

Either of my first two round Dragon opponents from the last RI tourney can attest to the fact that hate can be successful in an already potent deck. Siding in 9 cards against them they had almost no chance of success.


The important distinction to make has already been mentioned. That is the distinction between inherently powerful decks that can use hate alongside or even as part of their strategy and decks composed entirely of  hate that aren't really good at doing anything beyond that.

As far as mask and dragon are concerned, they are definitely 'hateable.' Swords to Plowshares for example has become an amazingly strong card that serves as an answer to both.

I definitely concur with Bebe and Smmenen here.\n\n

[Phantom Tape Worm]

I'm pretty sure steve and I are actually saying the same thing...sort of.

Quote HOWEVER, I think a combination of Hate Cards is very viable in the current Type One metagame for one huge reason: If you can fit hate cards into a very strong deck concept that is inherently powerful - like if you can fit Blood Moons into an established deck - then Hate may be very viable, just not as a viable concept in and of itself.

Quote I guess to sum up, what will be good in 2004 will depend largely on what hate each deck has access to and what combo/aggression strategy is considered to be the deck to beat.  Anything with an inherently strong base that can pack solid hate is a contender

Hmmm...I'd say we were in agreement


On hate vs long however Steve, I must disagree with you.  Tournament data (I can cite waterbury in particular) shows that long was in fact vulnerable to hate.  Vulnerable enough to give other decks an advantage against it and vulnerable enough to keep it out of complete format dominance.  Considering how good long was, this speaks volumes about the power of hate.  There is sufficient hate in the card pool that even the most degenerate decks can be kept in check.  The real trick to type 1, and any other constructed format, is just riding the metagame and dodging the hate.\n\n

[Milton]

First of all, let me say that this discussion is good.  Second, I have very little opinion on what the new meta is going to look like.  I just don't know.  I use a Socratic style of reasoning here where I ask questions instead of offering opinion and then make a few 'maybe' statements.  These statements may look like reasoned conslusion or informed opinion, but I assure you they are neither.  

As to the concept of "hate" I think PTW said it best when he said that the trick is to ride the metagame and dodge the hate.  Great point.

A point of equal importance is the notion that good decks can splash a few hate cards, to use the term hate loosely, and can stay competitive.  I think we have to be a little careful in that regard.  That's the kind of thinking that keeps people playing old school Keeper with a Tormod's Crypt in the board, thinking they are prepared.  Really, success in many cases has to do with match-ups, and not enough thought is given to specific match-ups for specific decks.  I remember reading posts that had decklists and match-ups, what to do in specific match-ups, analysis of good and bad match-ups, etc...  Much of that has gone by the wayside in favor of "this is the dominat deck, it can and should crush everything".  That type of thinking is equally dangerous because it leads to lazy deck design.  Also, people with such opinions will struggle when playing a prepared opponent.

Anyway, my thoughts on the new meta are still very "wait-and-see".  But, I think match-ups are increasingly important in a format where there are 10-20 deck designs that are capable of winning a tournament.  More people need to give serious consideration to their decks weaknesses and strengths and to the potential to be hated out themselvs.  Thus, PTW's comments of riding the meta and dodging the hate are dead on.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

This was a message sent to me by TracerBullet as he is unable to post on the EVF thread.

Quote PTW's Fish stuff first-

Quote   
I am a firm believer that fish can be metagamed to handle anything.  To be perfectly honest, I feel that TnT can be metagamed to handle anything as well, as can most other decks that are inherently strong.  You have to realize that hate cards are incredibly powerful in type 1 and any deck that packs solid hate directed at the decks it plays will have a decent shot at winning matches that it "shouldn't". I put that in quotations because of so many of us still cling to this outdated "rock, paper, scissors" notion of the metagame triangle.

Here's the thing- Ignore the Rock Paper Scissors triangle for a moment, and look at Fish simply as a dek composed of lowcc blue creatures backed up by a light amount of counters and a medial to heavy amount of draw.  Depending upon the specific balance you strike in your particular build, this will generally leave you with 4-12 slots that are what I call metagame cards- not always specficially "hate" cards, but just cards that are more particularly good in a single matchup or set of matchups.  Null Rod is a good example of a hate card that fits in this category, but Psionic Blast/ Fire/Ice are good examples of not what you would call "hate" cards, but just cards that have particular matchups in which they shine, and particular matchups in which they're shiite.

A deck like Fish does have inherant weaknesses- first and formost of which is that it's critters are smaller than other "aggro" decks, more specifically TnT, Suicide, Mask and Junkstyle.  No matter how you slice it, you're not going to find a lowCC blue creature that can match up with Nantuko Shade, Juggernaut, Dreadnought, or even Call of the Herd.  If decks that play these are rather prevalent, you're going to be forced to play some of your metagame slots to deal with these decks or simply concede to having a particularly bad set of matchups.  This means playing maindeck Waterfront Bouncer, or PsiBlast, or Fire/Ice, weakening your matchups against Keeper, or Hulk, or Dragon.  Now let's also remember that none of those card actually wins the matchup, or even necessarily puts it in your favor.  Having PsiBlast against Negator is good, but mediocre against Juggy, and downright shitty against Dreadnought.  You're going to be hardpressed to EVER find a build of Fish that can consistently beat TnT, and even if you can, it'll likely be so metagamed that you'll lose to almost the entire rest of the field.  Now consider that you've used up all-half-1/3 of your metagame slots, and you haven't even ensured victory in any one of those matchups, only slightly improved your odds in a few of them.  You're often faced with the decision of either trying to bring these matchups near even by putting in even more metagame slots (Mis-D, Stifle, Gilded Drake) or simply moving on and hoping for the right matchups when the tourney comes.  Here is Fish's problem.  
Fish will forever be a metagame deck simply because Fish is inherantly reliant upon drawing the right card at the right time for the right matchup.  A winning hand against Dragon IS NOT a winning hand against Mask IS NOT a winning hand against Hulk.  Fish players are forced to look at a projected metagame for the day, decide what is likely to be there, and then build their deck according to that metagame, and whereas a deck like Keeper may alter three or four cards, Fish will alter four or eight.  In fact, take a look at the last three decks to dominate a metagame-Long, Stax/WelderMUD, and RectorTrix- Notice that none of those decks were heavily reliant upon changing several cards based upon what they were expecting for the day.
You bring up the point that Fish can be tuned to beat any metagame.  That's exactly the point.  Fish HAS TO BE METAGAMED to handle any single metagame.  As such, I put it down as a metagame deck, and I assert that it thrived during Long and WelderMUD because it had particular advantages that other LongHate.decs didn't (Consistent Draw, FoW availability, Mana Disruption, and other hate availability [Null Rod, Chalice, Energy Flux, Arcane Lab] all in one deck).  I also assert that it WOULD NOT thrive in a TnT shaped metagame, or even a metagame in which TnT is prevalent because it lacks efficient hate against TnT and other large critter based decks.  Fish even has a very difficult time succeeding in an open metagame because

Enough about Fish-

I think you guys touched on one of the important points of hate decks- Hate decks never make it as one of the top decks in a metagame.  They exist only to deal with specific threats in a metagame, and really only succeed when that threat is a major portion of the metagame.

However, I think there needs to be a distinction between "hate" cards and "metagame" cards.  Blood Moon is a perfect example of a card crossing between what would otherwise be rather distinctive categories.  Blood Moon is an "I Win" card in certain matchups, and at the very least, will significantly help you to win in those matchups.  At the same time, there are some matchups where Blood Moon may well as be Great Wall.  The distinction comes with the number of decks in the metagame that Blood Moon is good against, or at least the percentage of people playing those decks.  When everybody in the metagame is playing Keeper, RecTrix, Hulk, or Dragon, I don't think we can call Blood Moon a hate card.  I think it becomes a card that is simply good in that given metagame.  Similarly, if only 10% of the metagame is playing decks with primarily non-basic lands, Blood Moon begins to look like it was played only to hate those specific decks.  Where the dividing line between the two is, I don't know for sure.

The only cards that are ALWAYS hate are cards like Tsabo's Decree, where there is only a single archetype that is at all affected by the card.  Cards like this in Type One are few and far between simply because of the multitude of different decks that will be found at different times, different tournements, and even different local metagames.  Conversely, no card will always be a metagame card, simply because metagames themselves will always change.  Who's to say that some day Swords to Plowshares won't be a hate card, as only one deck in the metagame plays creatures?

My thoughts.

Regarding fish I can only say well said TracerBullet!  Once again, as with myself and steve earlier I think TracerBullet and I are more or less in agreement and don't quite realize it     Your comments on fish are dead on!!  Take a look at my winning sideboards, they are constantly in flux based on what I expect to see, and a testament to the truth of some of the things you've just been saying

A couple of things you've said regarding fish that I do disagree with, one of which is this statement and what it implies:

Quote Fish will forever be a metagame deck simply because Fish is inherantly reliant upon drawing the right card at the right time for the right matchup.  A winning hand against Dragon IS NOT a winning hand against Mask IS NOT a winning hand against Hulk.

Any deck that plays a defensive game, ie. relies on stopping the opponent from winning faster than it can win, has to pack answers.  Some of which, null rod for example, are necessarily not always going to be good and are therefore metagamey.   The same can be said for anydeck that isn't purely aggressive however.  Keeper for example has cards like swords to plowshares, which are sub optimal vs scepter control, is keeper a metagame deck?  It may very well be.  I know if I were to play keeper, my board would be in constant flux to reflect the metagame.  Again, my philosophy for success in type 1 is never to think of things in terms of broad generic "the metagame", but rather "What's going to be at this tournament, and how do beat this metagame."

Also notice the decks you listed that don't change much based on what they are expecting for the day (Long, Stax/WelderMUD, and RectorTrix) also lean towards more aggressive stategies.  And they don't have to change much because by virtue of the speed with which they can win, they typically set the pace of the game.  Also, each is a form of combo and part of their game plan does involve avoiding interaction with thier opponent.  They don't need to plan on getting down in the trenches with their enemies quite as often as fish does because if they are going about their gameplan properly, they shouldn't have to.

Ironically, in type 1 where speed and mulliganing are of critical importance, almost every deck must be, as you put it, "reliant upon drawing the right card at the right time for the right matchup".  The same weapons used to fight off dragon will not not be the same weapons used to fight off long, will not be the same weapons used to fight off TnT.  And this holds true for every deck, not just "metagame decks".  I believe this is also because the threats are all so different, which also says a lot about type 1.  Many VERY different archetypes still flourish even in this sea of broken.

In short, I don't believe fish is a metagame deck anymore than keeper is a metagame deck.  Fish does have some problems with fat creatures just as keeper has problems with decks that can out draw it.  There are problems inherent in every archetype, not just metagame decks.

Perhaps I just did not understand what you meant by "metagame deck".  When I think metagame deck, I think sui with 12 creature removal slots  



Regarding the rest of your post TracerBullet, I've been using "hate" and "metagame slots" as one and the same.  For example, I see running 4 swords to plowshares and 4 disenchants in my U/w deck as dragon hate and workshop hate that also happens to be useful against the rest of the metagame right now.  I think it's more or less just a matter of semantics, you could call it either.

[Smmenen]

Quote (Phantom Tape Worm @ Dec. 02 2003,11:59)On hate vs long however Steve, I must disagree with you.  Tournament data (I can cite waterbury in particular) shows that long was in fact vulnerable to hate.  Vulnerable enough to give other decks an advantage against it and vulnerable enough to keep it out of complete format dominance.  Considering how good long was, this speaks volumes about the power of hate.  There is sufficient hate in the card pool that even the most degenerate decks can be kept in check.  The real trick to type 1, and any other constructed format, is just riding the metagame and dodging the hate.

Every time you, or anyone, publicly disagrees with me on this point I am compelled to respond.  So if you reply, I will have to reply again.  

Tournament results are important and is the first level of analysis always.  It's like looking at a law by a court - the court starts with the facial language.  But there are dynamics that go on under tournaments that aren't visible unless you dig deeper.  That is why I beleive that ANALYSIS OF TESTING is the most important thing in Type one.  Testing is not enough - saying a deck goes 64% against another deck is USELESS Becuase decks can adapt and change form to change those numbers.  What is important is understanding the testing results.  

The analysis, supported by copious testing results and TWO tournaments that I won as well as the expericnes of many others is:
Hate was not successful against long.  About the best two cards were Null Rod and Sphere (followed closely by Chalice for 1).  And the only one that I think was really a true threat to Long's future dominance of the metagame was Sphere.   Here is why, Stick with me here, Null Rod was fundamentally flawed from the get go.  If you were playing with Null Rod maindeck, chances were you weren't going to play it until turn 2 - and unless you were playing Fish, you probably lacked Countermagic or good non-wasteland disruption.  Long players woudl never let Wasteland destroy them becuase they would just not drop a land unless they a) had another or b) it was expendible becuase I was going to win this turn.  If you were playing first you had a about a 30-40% chance against no disruption to just win on turn one.  Otherwise, you can find Duress to win.  And even if your opponent for some reason gets a second turn, there is no gaurantee that they'll even have one of their there Null Rods.

Chalice: Chalice suffers from one problem that Null Rod does but not as Severe.  Chalice requires two mana on turn one to really hose long.  The difference of Sphere is that Workshop decks ALWAYS have two mana on turn one and so the card is a huge threat.  But EVEN IF these cards resolve, there are FOUR burning wishes in the maindeck - and you only need 2 lands to cast Burning Wish and Primitive Justice the subsequent turn.  Not that hard if you have Tutors and Brainstorms.  

So, digging deeper.  It is cliche for me at this point to say "people didnt play long correctly."  But even if it is a cliche that doesn't take away from its truth value.  Just Ask Goat.  He said that he effed up rounds one and two and he say other people do the same.  I have AMPLE evidence to suggestion from conversations with many many people that people are just incompetent with long. If people aren't maximizing their plays with long, Hate will become a much bigger factor becuase of increased chances of stall out and a slower game.  

I think it is an inappropriate subject to bring up as the deck is now dead - but if you keep at it, I will keep at it too becuase I am so certain of my conviction on the matter.  All I can say is that I wish I would have been at Waterbury but I was at KC earlier in the month and I cant take off that many weekends for type one around the states in one month.  My point is that tournament results in and of itself show no more than Testing results.  If you don't understand what's going on its worthless.

However, the experience has taught me one big lesson - It has made me emphathize with people who for years have been complaining about bad Keeper players who screw up and cause Keeper to lose.  I had never before thought, but only now realize, that a huge skill gap exists in type one.  My previous beleif was that one only needed to be competent with the best deck and they would do fine.  I now realize that competency is far from enough.  The Type One decks are too complicated and require too many decisions for competency to rule.  Therefore, results will always be skewed towards decks whih are easier to play: GAT and Dragon spring to mind.  I beleive that Zherbus said something to the effect that GAT is the easiest deck to play ever.

Stephen Menendian

[Smmenen]

Quote (Milton @ Dec. 02 2003,13:27)First of all, let me say that this discussion is good.  Second, I have very little opinion on what the new meta is going to look like.  I just don't know.  I use a Socratic style of reasoning here where I ask questions instead of offering opinion and then make a few 'maybe' statements.  These statements may look like reasoned conslusion or informed opinion, but I assure you they are neither.  

As to the concept of "hate" I think PTW said it best when he said that the trick is to ride the metagame and dodge the hate.  Great point.

A point of equal importance is the notion that good decks can splash a few hate cards, to use the term hate loosely, and can stay competitive.  I think we have to be a little careful in that regard.  That's the kind of thinking that keeps people playing old school Keeper with a Tormod's Crypt in the board, thinking they are prepared.  Really, success in many cases has to do with match-ups, and not enough thought is given to specific match-ups for specific decks.  I remember reading posts that had decklists and match-ups, what to do in specific match-ups, analysis of good and bad match-ups, etc...  Much of that has gone by the wayside in favor of "this is the dominat deck, it can and should crush everything".  That type of thinking is equally dangerous because it leads to lazy deck design.  Also, people with such opinions will struggle when playing a prepared opponent.

Anyway, my thoughts on the new meta are still very "wait-and-see".  But, I think match-ups are increasingly important in a format where there are 10-20 deck designs that are capable of winning a tournament.  More people need to give serious consideration to their decks weaknesses and strengths and to the potential to be hated out themselvs.  Thus, PTW's comments of riding the meta and dodging the hate are dead on.

I think you are making this a bit more complicated that it needs to be.

You want to know how to REALLY win a type one tournament?  The real way is simple - get on a good type one team, and play a really good new type one deck before it is published or listed on the mana drain. I have AMPLE evidence of the success of this strategy.  It works becuase teams focus energy on testing and tuning better than individuals.  And second becuase people won't be prepared for it at all, if that is what you are worried about.  I delayed the stax article a while so teammates could  play it.  I was going to delay the Long articles until November, but Koen published his.  

 I would like to agree with the sentiment that there is no dominant type one deck.  But i think as a theoretical matter, Type One will never truly be balanced - even in a shifting metagame dynamic with a very high )although not perfect) level of competition.  The problem is that Type One cards are so powerful, that other things being equal, there are objectively powerful strategies.  That said, that doesn't mean you take the so called "objectively best deck" to a room fulll of decks that have hate aimed directly at it - that would be stupid.   Who would play Dragon if everyone had 4 maindeck Tormod's Crypts?   So there is balancing at the margins, but that doesn't take away from the central claim.  I think, for type one, that is the price we pay for this format - its so absolutely broken, that there is almost always an objectively best deck.  I wish more pros played this format.  

You are right that 10-20 decks can take first place at any given tournament.  But there are too many factors going on to simply say its becuase they are metagaming properly.  The primary reason is that most Type One fields are semi-casual, if not openly so.  Another is that card limitations constrain potential deckchoices.  And finally, some players are going to do well no matter what they play with becuase they are so mucy better than most everyone else.  While there are more, the point Im trying to make is that the metagame is certainly not everything.  Common sense understanding of the metagame should be the operative principle - not actively tuning/designing a deck specifically FOR a metagame - that is a huge mistake.  The common sense metagame application basically has two parts in most metagames.  There is the high level events like Gencon, TMD Champs, and Waterbury.  Then there are local tournaments with 20 people who are mostly scrubs.  You change your deck accordingly.  Also, if you konw your aren't going to see Stax at your local tourney, you don't need SB cards for it.  This is a rather easy way to tune.  However, if you wish to SB effectively in the higher level metas - you MUST rely on test results.  Even more important than SBing is UNDERSTANDING the matchup - what works, what doesn't, what to counter, etc.  This will aid SB construction and execution.  I think that every deck in this second category of tournament should have answers to EVERY tier one deck.

Stephen Menendian\n\n

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Quote The real way is simple - get on a good type one team, and play a really good new type one deck before it is published or listed on the mana drain. I have AMPLE evidence of the success of this strategy.  It works becuase teams focus energy on testing and tuning better than individuals.  And second becuase people won't be prepared for it at all, if that is what you are worried about.

This is a fact I can pretty much support.
I took refined Shining to Dülmen before that version was openly known and took first.
Team CAB did take our new Keeper to Minden into a field of 18 Workshop Prison, Dragon, Long and non-Keeper control-decks with only 4 bad decks in the pool before Scepter was openly realized to be the power card it is and the three of us took 1st, 2nd and 4th place.
After that Carl Devos took first in the latest Dülmen with a decklist mainly tuned and refined by Womprax with support from other Team CAB members as well as Carl himself, I believe. And SurvivalMask is one of the decks considered second tier by most players here.
I think this is pretty ready evidence, even if it's a very smale sample.