New Decks Are Hard To Make.

[wuaffiliate]

a big problem people have is trying to build competative budget decks, you cannot start with a budget deck in mind when trying to build a deck for type1. decks like fish and ug madness work better as budget builds because they just need the power they can use (aka few moxen and power blue, and in mad's case lotus) so they dont work negatively for the deck.

null rod is one of the most important cards in type1 right now, but its only as good as what you throw it into. decks like suicide black cant even make null rod good because they cant get to the rod quickly nor can they really protect it.

for 90% of people its just easier to play whats currently available in the metagame than to inovate, which is fine.

[Ifflejink]

Although many new ideas are being intrpduced these days, most or all of them are shot down and disregarded while in their early forms. Type 1's big names often just say "there's not enough disruption" or "this looses to so many cards" without actually making an attempt to improve the deck. If less decks were shot down in their infancy as "non-competetive", Type 1 would be much more varied and we wouldn't even have this thread.

[Matt]

If you'd post competetive decks, they wouldn't be shut down. Combo decks with no disruption are not competetive, just plain terrible decks are not competetive, and random junk decks that have a few creatures, a little disruption, and no synergy are not competetive either. And then there's Suicide/X, which I shan't get into.

[InsaneScrub]

I thank you all for your great interest in the subject, and yes I agree with all of you on a lot of things, and talking about all that you have helps people like me to see the positive in things, thank you.

Also this discussion has led me to consider other things in deck building, and type 1 thoughts in general, it's not every day we have positive people posting good things that are helpful to the community.  Keep it up!

[Eastman]

I thank you all for your great interest in the subject, and yes I agree with all of you on a lot of things, and talking about all that you have helps people like me to see the positive in things, thank you.

Also this discussion has led me to consider other things in deck building, and type 1 thoughts in general, it's not every day we have positive people posting good things that are helpful to the community.  Keep it up!

Yah the moral of the story is to keep trying, and keep trying to improve your own abilities to play/build the decks.

The truth is none of us are all that good at type 1. This is a format of the mediocre and the awful. None of us, even your 'top tier' members put the kind of time and effort into deckbuilding in t1 that the pros do in t2, for instance. There is no one for whom vintage is more than a hobby.

Even given the time the pro players spend, it would be a task to really define vintage, given such a large card pool. A lot of strategies are viable and always will be and a lot are yet to be uncovered, so keep on trying and see how many times you can break the format.
 

[kirdape3]

Not really.  Gravitating towards the most ridiculous cards is pretty easy.  Then, build a deck either abusing those cards or cards that feed off such abuse to an acceptable limit (generally winning tournaments is nice).  Once those baseline decks are identified, find those decks that have strategy superiority over them while not auto-losing to every other deck that might be played at a tournament.  It's the process that found out that U/G Madness was in fact really strong in the format.

[StasisMage]

Im probably going to come off like an ass and if I say something that offends oh well. I have found in my viewing of this forum and many of the threads where you so-called paragons of vintage rear your head to say something it isnt uselly constructive (Not all of you mind just alot of you) and you almost always come off as being arrogent becuse you mabye feel you better then us, you may be but are we sure its not just the cards?

Matt you use one of my decks in your last post (The first link). You say it has no disruption, I say go back and ACTUALLY take a look at it instead of skimming over it like you probaly did in the first place. I must admit it didnt have enough but it was present in both the main deck as well as the sideboard.

Im useing you as an example of the kinds of things I see go on here. Just becuse you have a full membership or some similar title bellow you avatar doesnt give you a right to be arrogent. I could be arrogent cause I dont lose most of my games but Im not gonna stoop to your level.

Those are my two cents if what I have said gets me in trouble so be it I will deal with the trouble it brings. This was not written at all you who have a full membership or the fancy titles below the avatar, some of you are actually helpfull and not arrogent fools.

 

[jpmeyer]

One of the big differences between TMD and most Magic message boards is that we're not going to lie to people and tell them that their deck is playable when it obviously isn't.  And if it doesn't look like you put a lot of time into thinking about, building, and posting your deck, people here aren't going to give your deck much time either.

And the point of the site is to get mutually better, rather than to teach from the ground-up.  That's what articles are for.

[StasisMage]

I understanbd all that but often times many of you (Your not really on of the JP) come off as being arrogent and I personaly (I wont speak for others on the board) find that to be one of the rudest things. If your gonna tell me why deck is bad go ahead and do tell, I can and will take criticisms as long as they are useful. The last deck I posted I had taken down becuse after I started to play test it wasnt that good so I had a mod lock it up. More sometimes I see things like I pointed out with Matt in my previous post it doesnt look like he even bothered to go through and read the whole thing just skimmed over it becuse mabye he saw and idea that he didnt like and just said this deck is no good with even taking a close look at it (This is not a personal jab at you Matt). Things like that are the things I only had a suspicion and this may have proved me right. I see this kind of thing in real life where one doesnt think it will work becuse he thinks himself better the the person whom had the idea so he doesnt bother take a full look at the thing just skims it over and then casts it by the wayside. Thats more of my gripe and one of the reasons I think alot of deck ideas or innovations are stifled becuse the higher ups dont wish to take their time to even bothering giving it a good look through and help make it better or to help make it even work for that matter. Well I leave you to think about what I have said and really take a look at what you are doing...................

[Swanky]

It absolutely makes my stomach churn when either bitter truth or attempts to establish order are interpreted as arrogance.  After all, as JP said, telling a person a deck is playable when it clearly isn't would only result in said person becoming angry due to the fact they were misinformed.  Even if a person decides to make harsh, pithy comments, there's a chance that comment has some root in fact.  Even if someone doesn't necessarily mention what's amiss in your deck, it should prompt your own review and revision of the deck; rather than guiding people through personal betterment, it's more of a forced march. :P

Keep telling yourself, "It's only a game."

[Matt]

I didn't mean to link to your deck as an example of a combo deck with no disruption. I meant to link to the guy trying to make an affinity&Skullclamp-based combo deck. Your deck was meant to be an example of "terrible combo decks" that never made it into the final post. I apologize for mixing up the URLs.

[StasisMage]

I understand what you are saying and understand what JP was saying but pay attention to the way this group (social construct wether you like it or not) works and you will see that alot of arrogence from those that are placed in a higher station by this construct. I am not saying nor trying to imply that all of them are. If you tell someone that their deck sucks and they dont see mabye clairfify why you would say such a thing. Im not saying guide them by the hand.

What I am saying is many of their actions are made in their own arrogence and estimations of their abilty.

Keep telling yourself, "It's only a game."

Is probably the singal stupidest thing I have heard this day. Becuse you know what the truth of the matter it is only game. It is not a way of life and if it is a way of life for you then you need to step back and take a look at your life. But saying that this game is more then game is almos as bad as some other gamers I have know in the past they got so wrapped up in a game they couldnt seperate the game from reality. So yeah I will keep telling my self its a game BECUSE THATS WHAT IT IS.

[warlocker19]

New decks are hard to make because a lot of people won't let them get better.  Rcently I put up a list of a mono-blue deck and it was instanly ripped at.  I was trying to make a "new deck" but if no-one is going to try and make it better then why even post it on TMD.

And the point of the site is to get mutually better, rather than to teach from the ground-up.

How is anyone going to get better if you are not going to teach them.  Telling someone that there deck is bad is one thing, but not helping them with it is another.  All it will do is stray new people away from t1.

Original idea is good.  Lately I have been reading around TMD deck discussions, and all I see is different versions of tier 1 decks.  Obvioously, if the deck has seen 10 top 8's in the last eleven tourneys it is good.  I'm afraid people are forgetting about a mono-g ld deck that won in germany some time ago.

[Matt]

There is some skill in knowing whether an idea is a dead-end or not, without needing to actually try it out. The site higher-ups are usually very good at this. You took the same-ol', same-ol' monoblue list and added...Stifles. If that's the best example of people suppressing innovation you can find, your case is doomed before the opening statement.

When you suggest real innovation, you get thoughtful suggestions and praise. When you suggest tired old retreads of decks that have forever passed from the upper echelons of the format, you get slapped.

It's very rare for someone who knows what they're doing to suppress real innovation, because everyone wants the newest tech. Innovation does NOT mean doing what everyone else isn't.

[warlocker19]

Innovation does NOT mean doing what everyone else isn't

Thanks.  I see what you mean Matt.

[jpmeyer]

There is some skill in knowing whether an idea is a dead-end or not, without needing to actually try it out. The site higher-ups are usually very good at this. You took the same-ol', same-ol' monoblue list and added...Stifles. If that's the best example of people suppressing innovation you can find, your case is doomed before the opening statement.

When you suggest real innovation, you get thoughtful suggestions and praise. When you suggest tired old retreads of decks that have forever passed from the upper echelons of the format, you get slapped.

It's very rare for someone who knows what they're doing to suppress real innovation, because everyone wants the newest tech. Innovation does NOT mean doing what everyone else isn't.

Something that's kind of similar that people need to understand is that just because cards don't officially rotate out like in Standard and Extended, doesn't mean that they don't rotate out.  You can't play Serendib Efreet in Standard anymore, for instance because it's not in a legal set.  You can play it in Type 1, but in reality it rotated out like five years ago.  It really takes a miracle for something to bring old decks back.  Their weakness tends not to be that they're "just missing that one last card that they need."  It's usually in that their strategy becomes obsolete (Zoo,) is built on a fundamentally flawed premise (Suicide,) or becomes surpassed at what it does by another deck (mono-blue.)

Oh, and one other thing: it doesn't give me confidence in a thread when it has a title like "Can this work?" or "Is this viable?" and so on.  You should know that before you post.  I know I don't want to read about decks that aren't viable and if the poster doesn't have confidence in it then they're going to have a lot of trouble convincing me to pay attention to it.

[Matt]

It really takes a miracle for something to bring old decks back.

That reminds of something I've wanted to ask you about, since you seem to have a good working knowledge of the game's history: has any deck that's died/been rendered obsolete EVER come back in a serious way? I'm specifically asking pertaining to T1, I know Sligh pops up all the time in the rotating formats.

[bebe]

Time for my two cents. I rarely play decks that are well known. I'm always looking for somethintg that is innovative. As I've done fairly well in my meta, i think I can comment on a few issues ...

The importance of hosers and hate
Obviously you need more than just hate to win. But I recall playing a flip deck to a 3-2 record because it had ReBs, Chalice and Blood moon main decked along with two Pillages and five strips. It beat a Dragon and Tendrils deck that day. My Desperate Charged Blistering Firecats performed admirably. I also played Electric Ave. to top fours becuase it also provided answers that were outside the norm and were unexpected. Null Rods and Ankhs helped supported by Ld and Standstills.
Razor and I have been playing rogue decks for a long time in our meta and I believe a few established decks have resulted from our efforts to incoiporate a little hate mixed into our builds. Of course as Dicemanx has so aptly stated - you need to know your meta.

Building a rogue deck
I look for synergistic interactions between cards and then do some testing against a few established arch types. I often end up using cards that no one seems to be currently using - well I look for these cards. I will be playing a deck on Sunday that employs four Ication Javelineers and a few surprises that have not been seen in awhile. You might think them sub par. Not in this deck. I also make sure my sideboard and main deck has both threats and answers - I want no auto losses. I see plenty of room for innovation in the format still.

Don't be discouraged and post wisely
I was building and playing Lock, Stock ( a precursor of WMUd ) long before it was excepted in the community. Marc Perez and I were playing Fish when it was mocked. Not all my experimental decks are successfull though. I would say maybe ten percent have been developed and tweaked while I abandoned the remainder - I gave up on Landstill yet Richard made it work. But if I find potential I will work the deck like a dog with a juicy bone. I will take the beats and criticisms until I succeeed with it.
As to posting new ideas - notice that I have not posted the list I'm playing Sunday. I've shown the deck to RaZOR but until it actually performs well in a real tournament I'll keep it to myself because we have ENOUGH crap on these boards. I can hardly read the posts anymore. Yes, older memebers sometimes get cranky. We expect that a deck mis at the very least thought out and tested a bit. I hate ' let me throw this at you' decks. Put them in the casual forum - my favorite forum bercause at least i know what to expect and generally the deck sre well thought out.

Established arch types
I will only say that established arch types begin as innovative ideas. So of course there is room for new decks or we would still be playing Drop of Honey Zoo and Fruity Pebbles - not a dig at Jacob who has employed the card recently with some success. When Peter unleashed Dragon on our meta we were floored by it. I played Gush/Mask until Gush was restricted with grreat success. I remember playing Richard's Landstill the first time. I enjoyed seeing O. Stompy win a tournament after vhaving long discussions with Ray and his insisitence that the deck would work if we all just commented back with ideas. I will leave Charbelcher out of this converstion as a better player than me won with my deck when I scrubbed out with it. So yes. Innovate but test, discuss among your team or friends, try iot at a tournament and THEN post.

Last -
GO ROGUE GO

[InsaneScrub]

It is of utmost importance that good articles like this one, and any future articles on TMD be kept going, due to the fact that they present an opportunity for good players to encourage newer players to keep on stomping.  Which is to say that with a good discussion, one that leads to other discussions, with some serious thought behind the words presented by players, we can all garnish something worth reading.  I applaud everyones well thought out post and replies.

[jpmeyer]

It really takes a miracle for something to bring old decks back.

That reminds of something I've wanted to ask you about, since you seem to have a good working knowledge of the game's history: has any deck that's died/been rendered obsolete EVER come back in a serious way? I'm specifically asking pertaining to T1, I know Sligh pops up all the time in the rotating formats.

The closest thing I can think of in Type 1 is FCG replacing the obsolete Sligh, but does that even count?  I can't seem to think of any at all in Extended.