The evolution of Type 1

[bebe]

Lately I've been mulling over what constitutes an evolution in Type 1. I came across a site that had listings of top decks that ran back to 1996 and began to wonder how many of those decks might be playable today with an injection of a half dozen new cards.

Lets start with Keeper. We now envision Germbus as one of the dominant builds. Morphlings, the Shining, etc., are fading from memory. perhaps the new Crucible will forment a new combo Keeper but uit seems unlikely. DoJ and Exalted angel are the new prefered kills.

I remember the first Tools and Tubbies deck did not even use SotF. Prison faded to Lock, Stock and finally to Slaver. Workshop has defined the arch type but the deck today is quite different from its roots.

Combo was redefined with the advent of the Storm mechanism. I even hear talk that Dragon is not as viable a combo deck as once touted. Illusions is near dead.

Hulk and the mighty Psychatog now defines the aggro-combo archetype. Not long ago Masknaught was viewed and touted as the best aggro-combo deck on many forums. It seems largely ignored these days. FCG is more popularv than Mask.

Sligh and Sui are near dead. Budget decks consist of FCG, Fish and JP's Madness if we look to be competitive. Well, maybe RG beatz in some metas is also included as a top budget deck.

This seems to be how the evolution of Type 1 proceeds. Yet at various tournaments, I see the old arch types popping up and winning. I know at vintage Ontario Mask, TnT and Dragon took top spots. I still see good old sligh and GW Stompy in top eights here and there.

When older arch types are brought forward they are usually met with ' try this deck it's better'. Now, understandably, new cards entering the mix will generate a few new decks. But i wonder if we are overlooking some very good decks and cards at the expense of innovation. Certainly, new cards can be mixed into old arch types and these decks can be strengthened without being dratically overhauled. Fish added red and the deck became much better. Landstill toyed with white without losing the essence of the deck.

I am curious to hear others thoughts on the subject.

[jpmeyer]

I think part of it just comes from the fact that the power level in Type 1 is so high that it's really easy to ignore tuning a deck to the best it can be or ignoring a deck which isn't as good as a more established version.  Using your example for instance, while TnT is a worse Workshop deck than Slaver and Mask is a worse combo-y aggro deck than FCG, the fact that both decks can have 10+ power on the board on turn 2 is still going to win a few games.  Similarly, while Dragon may (or may not) be as good of a combo deck as Storm combo or Belcher, any deck that has a consistent turn 3 combo kill is going to get a fair share of wins like that.

Because of this, it makes it harder for people to disregard decks that they are winning with or that they see winning.  One thing that I said in my last article that is related to this is when Meandeck tests, we note any games which were decided through outright broken draws and espescially in the case of combo drawing Necro, Mind's Desire, or Bargain, do not usually include them when figuring out our win/loss percentage.

[Ric_Flair]

I am sure that I will get little disagreement from people when I say that part of the phenomenon is based on the fact that Wizards is making better cards.  Phil's numbers show a clear trend--new sets are just better.  JP commented on this as well, but I think it bears repeating given the topic.  Cards like Mindslaver, Tog, the Madness guys, and the fetchlands are MORE important to Vintage than every card except the P9 and Force.  Old sets were awful messes.  If we got a good card it was good because it was a mistake and was hideously broken.  But by in large pre-Tempest sets were really hit and miss.  Think of it this way:  If Mindslaver was only printed in ABU it would almost certainly be the same price as Lotus.  Its effect is unparalleled in all of Magic (Word of Command? Shut up).  

Other things to think about demonstrating a clear bias towards newer cards is the phenomenon of "nothing better."  By that I mean that Wizards could not make cards better than some cards that exist and were made recently.  Think about this: Nantucko Shade, a creature we have all wanted since Frozen Shade was printed, pretty much cannot get any better without ruining the game--and it is not seeing play.  Deed is in this same category, as are the fetchlands.  These basic abilities/cards cannot get any better without ruining the game.  Final case in point Golbin Welder.  His ability is simply the best non Tog activated ability in the game, and if we look at each activation one at a time, is vastly better than Tog's abilities.  Could they print a creature that does something similar to Welder, but more efficiently without wrecking the game?  I don't think so.  

Bottom line is that some design space has reached the end of the line.  Duress, Force of Will, Nantuko Shade/Troll Ascetic, Goblin Welder and the like are as good as those types of abilities can get without being stupid.  So we have the best of the best in certain areas.  This is factor 1.  Factor 2 is based on the same phenomenon.  After tapping all this well treaded design space, Wizards is going to virgin space like Mindslaver, and as a result is making new and tremendously powerful cards.  Both because they are new and because they are just learning how to tweak these cards.  Slaver would almost certainly be more to activate if they had it to do over again.

[PucktheCat]

Using your example for instance, while TnT is a worse Workshop deck than Slaver and Mask is a worse combo-y aggro deck than FCG,

I am not entirely sure that this is the right way to look at it.  I am not one of those people who is inclined to shout "metagame" every time someone says one deck is better than another, but I do think it has some place in the calculation.

Take combo, for example.  It has long been a truism that there should only be one viable combo deck in a metagame because only one deck has the best combo.  The best combo deck is generally thought to be synonymous with the one that excecutes its combo fastest - but that is obviously a simplification.  If it were true then Long would never have run Duress - it just slowed it down, afterall.  Long ran Duress because it helped the deck win against an anticipated field that ran, among other things, Force of Will.

But once you have acknowledged that a less purely "powerful" version of a deck is better simply because of the cards your opponent is running you have opened the door.  What if you anticipate that every opponent will be playing with 4 Null Rod and 4 Chalice of the Void?  Perhaps Dragon, even if it is less "powerful" is the correct choice?

As long as there are 10 different decks with similar power levels that are resistant to different sideboards and strategies many of the strategies will remain broadly playable even if one is better than the other when measured against some "objective" standard.

Leo

[jpmeyer]

I know that everyone HATES to admit when decks are better or worse than other decks, but look at a comparison between FCG and Mask.  Mask requires a combination of two cards to win the game and usually about 2 turns after this combination is played to win.  FCG has a one card combo that kills in at most 2 turns after it is cast and can also just beat down and score a reasonably fast kill.

"But but but but what if everyone is running 4 maindeck Chill and and and" SHUT THE HELL UP.  And what if everyone is playing 4 maindeck Null Rod and Oxidize, which would be much more common?  It's that sort of thing.  There's also that ReapLace thread that I moved to newbie because the deck is simply inferior to Tog since it is a Tog deck for the first 50 cards but then needs to run about 10 slots for its 3 card kill rather than 3 slots for Tog's one card kill.

I really like to leave "but what about the METAGAME!" sort of arguments out because metagames are still really really random which going back to that incoherence/innovation thread, makes it really hard to figure out what is among the best.  I do however don't want to omit splash damage from this equation, because this is a fairly important consideration to take into account.  Rector Trix getting hit by cards aimed at Dragon is a good example of this.

[PucktheCat]

I am not suggesting that every deck is viable.  I don't have much interest in defending Mask since I never liked it much anyway.  But I do think that in a card pool like Vintage's, with a large number of cards that are all aiming to swing the game in the first two or three turns, that the interactions between those cards can be of critical importance - more impotant than the small power differences between the cards themselves.

In Dr. Sylvan's recent article he mentions that the sideboard is too small for this format.  I think that is exactly true.  The format has probably a half dozen or more different strategies with dramatically different vulnerabilities that all can win against an unprepared opponent.  Even if Hulk and Slaver have a substantial power level advantage over the field a deck like Dragon might be a better choice if you expect little grave hate or creature removal.

Leo

[Dr. Sylvan]

If Mindslaver was only printed in ABU it would almost certainly be the same price as Lotus.

My nitpicking sensors went off on this comment. Black Lotus: Every deck needs one. Mindslaver: Nope. It'd be a pricey bitch (think Berserk, roughly), but it would not be nearly the same.

Back on-topic:

It has long been a truism that there should only be one viable combo deck in a metagame because only one deck has the best combo.

I think that this truism is valid. There's never more than one 'correct' hardcore combo deck. At the moment, I see this as a toss-up between TPS, Draw7, and Belcher--a toss-up I'm not qualified to call. I am confident that Rector isn't in contention for this category. There is also room for 'combo' decks with a spectrum of control components. For instance we might see combo decks spanning a spectrum from almost none (Belcher) to heavy control (Hulk Smash) with various levels of goldfish speed and resilience. Despite this range, though, there are still fewer choices than most people would contend.

In Dr. Sylvan's recent article he mentions that the sideboard is too small for this format.

My belief is that in a better-refined metagame, this would not be the case. This doesn't mean sideboards shouldn't feel pressed for space--every Constructed format has tight sideboards. It does mean the meta shouldn't be so diverse that you have an active concern about running into "randomness".

Yet at various tournaments, I see the old arch types popping up and winning.

Type One players don't change as fast as Type One does. It's that simple.

[PucktheCat]

Dr Sylvan,

I agree that only one combo deck is optimal in a theoretical sense - only one wins the fastest - but in practice combo decks almost always have some control components.  And even when they don't two decks that have different vulnerabilities to hate may be viable at the same time.

As for the sideboard issue - let me lay this out as tightly as I can.

A metagame deck is a deck that people can lose to if they aren't prepared for it.

If you want sideboard cards against a deck then you presumably feel that if you are unprepared you might lose to the deck.

Therefore, a deck that you want sideboard cards against is, but definition, a successful metagame deck.

Decks like these aren't going away unless the maindecks change to make them unviable.  Dragon would die if 4 StP Keeper became the dominant deck.  It will never die as long as Hulk has to keep 3 Coffin Purge in the side to keep it in check because after a while some other deck will come along that Hulk wants those slots to beat and it will cut Coffin Purges and Dragon will once again be a good metagame choice.

To me it seems that if the sideboards are too small to handle all the randomness then that would simply encourage more randomness - there are enough decks that can win in the turns 2-5 win window that constitutes T1 viability to keep sideboards insufficient to deal with all of them indefinatly.  The only thing that will make them unviable is either directly confronting their strategy with hate or splash damage (like hate aimed at Dragon killing Rector).  Presumably a lower fundamental turn would also make many of these decks unviable, but that is also a change to the maindeck, not the sideboard.

Let me articulate another point.  Many of the people who play rogue/out of favor decks aren't as skilled as those who play top tier decks.  There are a number of reasons for this, including access to up to date information, but I would suggest that playing rogue decks is actually strategically sound for some of these players.  Hulk is a good deck because it is so overwhelmingly strong that often your opponent isn't relevant at all.  The only thing that matters is your deck and your skill - things you control.  Rogue decks, OTOH, are dependant on your opponent's choices (in their sideboard, for example) more than your own.  For this reason, a bad player may actually have a better chance of making T8 with a rogue deck than a top tier one.

Leo

[Ric_Flair]

Dr. Sylvan:

Ric_Flair wrote:
If Mindslaver was only printed in ABU it would almost certainly be the same price as Lotus.

My nitpicking sensors went off on this comment. Black Lotus: Every deck needs one. Mindslaver: Nope. It'd be a pricey bitch (think Berserk, roughly), but it would not be nearly the same.

I am thinking that Slaver would at least be the same price as Mirror Universe was at its peak.  The thing that effects price is playability and splash.  Slaver ranks very high in that regard and as such I think that it would have been incredibly expensive.  Maybe not Lotus price but certainly expensive.  Plus it could never be anything less than a rare, making it almost automatically more expensive than Berserk.

[bebe]

Many of the people who play rogue/out of favor decks aren't as skilled as those who play top tier decks. There are a number of reasons for this, including access to up to date information, but I would suggest that playing rogue decks is actually strategically sound for some of these players.

As condescending a statement as I've seen on these boards in awhile. Dicemanx, Razor, Wu, myself and others like to play rogue decks occasionally. So we are not Spikes. To infer that the level of our play is less than others is true in in a very general sense. When playing rogue we might indeed take the game less seriously. But i ca assure that we are capable of skilled play and have also played decks that require a high level of skill. My experience has shown time and again that experienced players choose rogue decks once in awhile because they enjoy the challenge. These decks can be very difficult to play.  

I think that this truism is valid. There's never more than one 'correct' hardcore combo deck. At the moment, I see this as a toss-up between TPS, Draw7, and Belcher--a toss-up I'm not qualified to call. I am confident that Rector isn't in contention for this category.

Again, I have a problem with this. There might be only one known and recognized best combo deck. In a balanced metagame there are certainly a number of valid choices. What some see as incoherent others view as healthy.

 know that everyone HATES to admit when decks are better or worse than other decks, but look at a comparison between FCG and Mask. Mask requires a combination of two cards to win the game and usually about 2 turns after this combination is played to win. FCG has a one card combo that kills in at most 2 turns after it is cast and can also just beat down and score a reasonably fast kill.

Theory aside, tournament results do not validate your example. I've seen Mask outperform FCG at two tournaments. If FCG does not find its combo piece quickly ( it happens often enough), Mask will as its search components are just superior. Mask needs to draw one of eight cards and a search component to win. It also packs disruption.  This is too transparent to convince me of its validity.  

I really like to leave "but what about the METAGAME!" sort of arguments out because metagames are still really really random which going back to that incoherence/innovation thread, makes it really hard to figure out what is among the best. I do however don't want to omit splash damage from this equation, because this is a fairly important consideration to take into account. Rector Trix getting hit by cards aimed at Dragon is a good example of this.

I agree and disagree. I was unfortunate enough to run a Belcher deck and my first three match ups featured decks running Rods and FoWs. Need I recount my results? To that point I had thought Belcher capable of outrunning meta game hate or at the least capable of Wishing for a solution. In testing and theory it worked. A prime example of a metagame is your Madness build. It is Type 2 Madness with Null rods shoved in ( well not radically different anyway). Why would I play this deck when there are clearly stronger arch types available? This was the posed question at the start of the thread. TnT can be a powerful deck still. There are new weapons available. I could envision a number of decks making reappearances incorporating some of the strongest cards from the new sets but they are largely overlooked as past their time. As long as we have the engines ... Bazaar, SotF, Workshop, etc., the possibilities exist that the evolution of Vintage is skewed by the net. We tend to look and copy what is being played currently which is perhaps detrimental to the envoronment at times. History is a good teacher.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Of course there are metagame decks; this is what keeps the meta from being just two to four decks based on the most powerful handful of unrestricted spells. My statements about overdiversity should be taken in the context of reporting on a metagame with 28 archetypes in nine Top 8s. I would have no problem with a dozen or so decks comprising nearly the whole metagame. Even considering all the possibilities of archetype-hybridization, anything over twenty decks under active consideration is a clear sign to me that people aren't adapting.

[PucktheCat]

As condescending a statement as I've seen on these boards in awhile. Dicemanx, Razor, Wu, myself and others like to play rogue decks occasionally. So we are not Spikes. To infer that the level of our play is less than others is true in in a very general sense. When playing rogue we might indeed take the game less seriously. But i ca assure that we are capable of skilled play and have also played decks that require a high level of skill. My experience has shown time and again that experienced players choose rogue decks once in awhile because they enjoy the challenge. These decks can be very difficult to play.

I am not implying that all players who play rogue are bad, or that when someone wins with rogue decks their wins are somehow "undeserved," although I understand that it may read that way.

I benefited from this phenomenon at my first tournament.  I played Steel Necro in a metagame that hadn't seen it in a while because of Wall of Blossoms.  I won the tournament because I found an answer to WoB and there was no hate left for Necro because everyone thought it was dead.  I played skillfully, for a beginner, but my randomness beat several decks as well.

I certainly would be more likely to win a T2 right now by playing something unexpected than by trying to play Affinity better than anyone else.  The problem is that in T2 Affinity may be the only deck that can win on turn X (when does T2 affinity win?) so that there aren't many unexpected strategies that can compete with it.  In Type 1 a whole lot of decks are close enough together in their goldfishes that card interactions can beat out raw power.

@Dr. Sylvan: It is probably true that several of these decks have no reason to exist.  I am not sure that I believe that there is a hard cap on the number of viable decks in the format though.

Leo

[Hi-Val]

I think that the price of cards influences T1 to a degree as well. Not the usual money argument here, so bear with me. If Johnny PTQ wants to play T1 and builds a ten-land Stompy deck and then after playing it a few months and being decent with it, finds out that Chalice kills it, he will probably A.) Quit the field or B.) Keep playing the deck. This is because nobody likes to have their deck completely gutted in favor of newer stuff that they have to buy.

That's why people still play Rector and Pebbles and Sligh. They've made what they think is a sizable investment into the field and don't want to drop all that overnight.

[jpmeyer]

I think that the price of cards influences T1 to a degree as well. Not the usual money argument here, so bear with me. If Johnny PTQ wants to play T1 and builds a ten-land Stompy deck and then after playing it a few months and being decent with it, finds out that Chalice kills it, he will probably A.) Quit the field or B.) Keep playing the deck. This is because nobody likes to have their deck completely gutted in favor of newer stuff that they have to buy.

That's why people still play Rector and Pebbles and Sligh. They've made what they think is a sizable investment into the field and don't want to drop all that overnight.

Or to extended that further, if you're playing Tog and you suddenly want to play Workshop Slaver, it's not like you can trade your 4 Mana Drains for the 4 Workshops that you now need.

Oh, and "rogue" decks are not wacky decks or original decks or bad decks that you think are good.  Rogue decks are decks that are made to beat metagame predictions.  U/G Madness was a rogue deck.

Random other thing: I think a lot of this could be solved if people took the time to determine when you should "just win" and when you should interact.  It seems like there's a bit of debate within similar decks in this area and I'm certain the answer is not the same trite "YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE METAGAME!"  The best example of this that I can think of off the top of my head is Keeper vs. EBA in the battle of base U/W decks with Exalted Angel.  There's also the issue of decks with very similar strategies such as Tog vs. GAT and U/G Fish vs. U/G Madness.  And let's not forget bits of semantics, too.

[CrazyCarl]

I think that the price of cards influences T1 to a degree as well. Not the usual money argument here, so bear with me. If Johnny PTQ wants to play T1 and builds a ten-land Stompy deck and then after playing it a few months and being decent with it, finds out that Chalice kills it, he will probably A.) Quit the field or B.) Keep playing the deck. This is because nobody likes to have their deck completely gutted in favor of newer stuff that they have to buy.

That's why people still play Rector and Pebbles and Sligh. They've made what they think is a sizable investment into the field and don't want to drop all that overnight.

Or to extended that further, if you're playing Tog and you suddenly want to play Workshop Slaver, it's not like you can trade your 4 Mana Drains for the 4 Workshops that you now need.

Oh, and "rogue" decks are not wacky decks or original decks or bad decks that you think are good.  Rogue decks are decks that are made to beat metagame predictions.  U/G Madness was a rogue deck.

Random other thing: I think a lot of this could be solved if people took the time to determine when you should "just win" and when you should interact.  It seems like there's a bit of debate within similar decks in this area and I'm certain the answer is not the same trite "YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE METAGAME!"  The best example of this that I can think of off the top of my head is Keeper vs. EBA in the battle of base U/W decks with Exalted Angel.  There's also the issue of decks with very similar strategies such as Tog vs. GAT and U/G Fish vs. U/G Madness.  And let's not forget bits of semantics, too.

That's what 5 proxy tournaments are for.  I can only build control and combo with the cards that I own, but by trading for at most $100 worth of cards, I can build at least 3-5 other decks by proxying workshops/bazaars etc.

As for the whole metagame thing, there are those who innovate(mostly the larger teams but there are a few small ones that come up with some hot shit), but for the most part, the type 1 community is left in the dark to fumble around until one of these teams flicks the light switch.  Dr. Sylvan's work is helping fix this alot imo, providing a lot of valuable data and a stream of decklists, saving the rest of us slobs a lot of legwork and searching.