article - going rogue

[bebe]

There is a tendency for net decks to more-or-less dominate things.The whole process
of creating a new deck is difficult and time-consuming.  Moreover, it's basically
unnecessary if all you want to do is humble your friends at the local
tournament- a deck off themanadrain will do just fine for that.
That being said, I really wish more people would spend the time
and effort to innovate. it's disheartning to sit down at a tournament and
face multiple mirror matches or face a deck that you know so well that you
can play the game on autopilot.

There is something to say about playing a deck concept that you came up with yourself.

Some of the local metagame environments might be a little inbreed and stale. Are the
number of viable deck types severely limited in Type 1? I'm referring to viable
as a deck type that is highly competitive in a powered meta. Should a healthy
metagame contain only a half dozen viable deck types or should it. Should a healthy
meta contain a greater number of viable choices. The paragons of vintage would have
us believe not.    


Here is a quote from a forum ...

I have a completely rogue deck idea that I really think the MTG community would
appreciate.

I just want to see if anyone knows a few good places to post it, so it can gain
recognition.

(And yes, I have posted it on this forum.)

Thanks.

We all know the different arch types, so few are on the lookout for
rogue decks. Rogue decks are considered Tier 2 decks by most. We construct
these rogue decks to prove to our peers that we can be original and innovative.
This leaves a whole host of rogue decks waiting to be released. What's the future for
Magic? Is it really just rock-paper-scissors, where decks  fall by the wayside
because the card mix doesn't support them as well anymore and new decks take their places?
Get into a questioning mode, check the sites and tournament reports and then spend
some time building decks that I like to call creative. Is this a healthy and
thoughtful approach? What are the more promising rogue ideas right now? What do people
think are the up-and-coming decks.


The answer is not that clear. We need innovation for new arch types to emerge
but more often than not the deck does not succeed in its original manifestation.
Early builds are often dissapointing or inconsistent. Many of the decks are
playable but they are not highly competitive. Yes, luck is an inevitable factor and
without some element of luck, the game would certainly lose its attraction. The
game is biased away from the chance factor though. Good decks take into account this
element of luck. That said if you are serious about building a rogue deck do not be
afraid to throw that bad concept into the ring of criticism.

Coming up with original decks is determining whether or not the concept works.
Usually there are three or four cards that lets your deck win. Recognizing
probable match ups will help determine if your deck has a chance. Creatures,  
counterspells and combo are all being played. Can your deck handle those creatures,
counter or prevent that counter deck from reacting, kill that combo deck before it
can kill you or break their combo.


Know that when the best players agree on one line of play, and you think
differently, accept the possibility that  you could be wrong. Early builds often
mis-evaluate cards. There are power disparities in in unconventional cards.
Sometimes they counterbalance incorrect assumptions of the deck's ability to compete.
Rogue" decks sometimes win small venues but do not perform as well at larger
venues. The best Vintage players at big events make very good decisions abiut their
build, minimizing the chances of adding an inferior card to it.
Here is a depressing little fact: rogue decks rarely win large tournaments. It
is only after their potential is recognized anfd the decks are tweaked that they
succeed. A rogue deck that is copied and tweaked soon ceases to be rogue.

There are over 6,000 cards printed by WotC since its start over 10 years ago.
There have been hundreds of winning decks.There is always a deck ready to
emerge as the 'best' that a a year ago was unknown. We need new decks as older decks
do not remain powerful as newer cards emerge.  

Lock, Stock which evolved into WMud, O. Stompy began as an experiment.
The first Fish builds were without Standstill and mono blue.
Madness was all over the place beginning starting with Toronto Stompy.  

I like to play decks where from one tournament to the next that has the potential
of taken my opponent by surprise. Here on themanadrain some have advocated a meta
where everyone knows what they will hit. This is the ideal environment for rogue to
thrive in. You simply need to proxy up the top decks and create a new deck that has
game against them. Now you can't really make a 100% Rogue deck that will work every  
tournament as no one deck type is in control. But it does encourage Tier 2 decks
to really come into their own. In fact a lot of people seem to have
noticed that making a Tier 2 deck that is 50% good against most, with a sideboard
that increases this to 70%, is the way to go.

People realise that speed is the way to overcome many deck building issues.
One of the most significant problems for Magic at this point is the prevalence of
decks that can win  or lock the game quite early.
Unfortunately the designers and play testers do not endeavor hard enough to be far more
aware of the  potential of certain combinations and how they can impact
the game over the long run. The result is dominant decks. WoTC  needs to playtest
cards better.
 
By eliminating the rogue Decks and the unknowns, we arrive at maybe a half dozen
solid decks types. When an environment starts to become defined it almost always
begins as a control stratagem initially. Slowly, but surely, combo develops. Then of
course, we have beatdown decks, which are hit and miss against control. This has
created the current environment where fat green and Madness are thriving.

We all know the different arch types, but who is on  the lookout for those rogue decks.
You really can't get ready and playtest for those rogue decks that you might be paired up
against. You just have to be prepared for all of those different archtypes that will be
at a tournament. Hell, I'll play a rogue deck that is geared to beat the other arch types.
But you once you build one deck to beat the others everyone will be playing that deck. Just ask Ray,
Peter and Richard.

[urza_insane]

Very nice read, i totally agree with what you said. Thanks

[jdl]

it's disheartning to sit down at a tournament and face multiple mirror matches ...

Wouldn't this imply that the person who is disheartened by netdecking has, in fact, done just that?

[bebe]

Wouldn't this imply that the person who is disheartened by netdecking has, in fact, done just that?

Guilty as charged. I have been known to play decks designed by Steve, Legend and JP. I loved Sui, Long and Hulk. But these were aberant behaviours in moments of weakness.

[The Atog Lord]

The irony in this matter is that rogue decks which perform well stop being rogue decks. If you innovate a successful new deck and win with it, other people will start to copy it and it will become a "net deck."

[Plainswalker]

I think how you define rogue really matters here. All I really see a rogue deck as is either one of three things, a bad deck, a good deck yet to be tested much, or a tier 2 or lower deck (aka a metagamed deck). So what is a good rogue deck? A deck that has potential, but has not reached that point yet. But as you said:

Here is a depressing little fact: rogue decks rarely win large tournaments. It is only after their potential is recognized and the decks are tweaked that they succeed. A rogue deck that is copied and tweaked soon ceases to be rogue.

What this says to me is that the best decks are the ones highly tested (obviously) and use some or all of the best cards in the format. In otherwords, not rogue. Now I have no problem with rogue decks, obviously they are what sometimes can get discussion started and help prove that your deck is good. What I have a problem with is people who build a "rogue" deck and post it with little to no testing. People have said it before and I'll say it again, once you have, or someone else has won a major tournament with that deck, then come back and discuss it. I don't care how bad it looks on paper, if it did well then it has some merit, more so then testing does to me because it was a real field.

Anyways to get back to the point, I don't think there are real rogue decks (or maybe I just don't like the term?), there are Tier 1, metagamed decks (which is what I would classify rogue as) Tier 2 decks and lower and decks that are just 60 pieces of useless cardboard. I think what is important is not whole new decks, but innovation as you pointed out as part of deck building. When you build Control Slaver for example, how many cards do you put in automatically and how many do you think about? Same with Hulk, all I've ever seen were Hulk with 3 togs, but recently I've seen people play more controlling hulk with 2, but when I built tog before I never even thought it a possibilty to go below 3. It was as much a part of the deck as 4 Underground Sea. Net decking is not bad as long as you understand the whole deck and how it works, which many don't. As you said:

it's disheartning to sit down at a tournament and
face multiple mirror matches or face a deck that you know so well that you can play the game on autopilot.

Again I don't think going rogue here is the answer unless you have lots and lots of time to test, I'd much rather innovate some interesting idea into a current deck and suprise people. If they are on autopilot it will screw them up that much more.

I don't know, I think both our reasoning has some holes in it, I've been sitting here for a while trying to pick the right words to say but they aren't all coming to me. Rip this to shreds so I can see where I went wrong.

[Robert the Swordsman]

Nice article.

I play rogue decks (though, not so much rogue as just plain terrible) pretty much exclusively.

One of the bad parts is, the second I sit down across from an opponent in a tournament, I instantly feel like I'm going to be ridiculed and just get smoked. It brings you down, and makes you just not even want to play.

However, this is definitely not always the case, and when you end up winning that match, you feel like a million bucks (or roughly two million Canadian bucks).

If I were to win with an established archetype (and don't get me wrong, there are some real decks out there that I just love, such as U/W Landstill), I'd feel just the same as I would were I merely borrowing a deck; I wouldn't feel like I won on my own.

I know alot of people would consider that a pretty lousy mentality, but it's just how I feel.

Even so, I have absolutely NO problem with people playing whateverthehell deck they want and I have very little tolerance for those who would complain about losing to "netdecks".

If they're popular and commonly played, wouldn't that just give you an advantage because you know what you're up against? Take that, whiners.

In any case, very cool article.

Good luck.

[Garth One Eye]

Great article!  

I've found that rogue decks usually show up in under-powered metas and some well built ones are hard to beat.  I have to tip my hat to anyone who not only brings a truly unique deck to a tourney but also pilots it well enough to make some noise.  

Wizards IMHO made a huge mistake by dropping their policy of letting DCI Judges playtest cards and send in their feedback.  A lot of broken cards make it to print because of this, thus shifting the entire meta as a whole.  This makes Rogue decks that much harder to create IMO.

[Gothmog]

I think the forum rules of these forums discourages new deckbuilding.  As stated earlier in this thread, the standard for posting a new or innovative deck is winning a major tournament with that deck.

That is an awfully difficult standard to reach.  A great player, playing the "best" deck can go months or even years without winning a major tournament.

Themanadrain is extremely useful for reading about or discussing established decktypes but really isn't useful anymore for developing a new deck type.  By the time a deck is ready to be posted here, the vast majority of development should be done, making you wonder why you bother posting it here at all; other than for the ego gratification of saying you won something.

[theorigamist]

it's disheartning to sit down at a tournament and
face multiple mirror matches or face a deck that you know so well that you
can play the game on autopilot.

I liked the article, but I disagree with this statement.  I think playing on autopilot is simply a reflection of the amount of preparation and planning you have done.  The amount of autopiloting you can do in a tournament is directly related to how much testing you have done and how well you can predict the metagame.  In other words, as your predictions are more accurate and your subsequent testing more thorough, you will play on autopilot more often.  That's not a bad thing, and it's certainly not disheartening to know that you did what you needed to do to prepare.

EDIT: I hadn't seen the previous post.

I think the forum rules of these forums discourages new deckbuilding.

I completely take JP's stance on this.  I don't see any evidence of stifling innovation that some people complain about on these boards.  It really is just a difficult task to come up with a good deck.  The standards for posting don't require winning a major tournament.  They do require explaining why your card choices are the best choices, and they require you to have done some testing to see if the deck has merit.  That is entirely reasonable.  Innovation does not mean spewing out a bunch of untested crap and hoping somebody else also thinks it works.  Maybe a bunch of monkeys banging on typewriters will eventually write Shakespeare, but this isn't the place to sift through all the other monkeys' crap.

[Colossus]

The problem is this:
It takes so much effort to develop a ropgue deck worth playing.
I've been trying.  I've been trying pretty hard to come up with one.  In the end, I finally get to-gether a card list, and put the thing to playtested and either do o.k. or get owned.  When I do o.k. I feel like I've suceeded, but I have a hard time getting the thing tested against a wide array of decks.
When I finally get it working, or semi-working, I find that NO ONE will give me imput on the deck.  They seem to have the attitude "It's not a deck I've heard of, you can't possibly be a good enough player to make a good deck on your own, why not run (fill in the blank) instead."
This happens with the people I play against, and EVERYWHERE online.

What's the solution?  I don't know.  I think it would be very helpful for people who like to play rogue to develop decks in teams, I know having oone other person committed top making a deck work would be very helpful to me.

[bebe]

I think the forum rules of these forums discourages new deckbuilding.

We do not discourage innovation on these forums. We discourage poorly presented explanations of a deck and shoddy paly testing. Yes we are a contentious lot at times. If you nare looking for approbation then this site is not for you. Not a few of my insights and comments have been shot down in flames.

"It's not a deck I've heard of, you can't possibly be a good enough player to make a good deck on your own, why not run (fill in the blank) instead."
This happens with the people I play against, and EVERYWHERE online.

Again, I've seen new ideas come to fruition on these boards. I think it depends very much on your presentation and preparation.

[BreathWeapon]

I disagree with the need to "innovate," despite having a format where 6,000 cards are legal; how many of them are actually worth playing with? How many innovations are inferior to existing archetypes? Look at how hard it is to create new combo decks, all of them fall between Draw7 and Dragon. Prison is on the same level, what can you create thats better than Slavery or Trinistax? Yes, this line of logic is a little "closed," but most of the successful decks in the format are the decks that rest at the far extremes of the spectrum. Anything "new" usually falls between one of the other extremes and fades from memory, like Oshawa Stompy. With the exception of Hybrid decks, I don't think innovation in the format is going to lead anywhere right now.

[bebe]

Anything "new" usually falls between one of the other extremes and fades from memory, like Oshawa Stompy. With the exception of Hybrid decks, I don't think innovation in the format is going to lead anywhere right now.

This is just wrong. Every deck arch type was at one time an innovation. We are not playing the same decks today that we played one year ago. This is 'fuzzy logic' at its best. Surely you must recognize the anomaly in your contention.
Certainly we will not use the majority of magic cards in a viable build. But as new cards are created so are new synergies and uses for old cards. LED was ignored for quite some time and then was restricted. ESG is another card largely ignorred until the last six months. We can go on. New decks will most certainly be created and a few will flourish.
Do you rerally think you will playing against the same decks we have today, one year from now?
interesting that you should pull O. Stompy out of the pool to highlite your logic. I,mjsut spent the evening with Ray - its creator - and believe me when I say new innovations are in the works by the Oshawa crowd. When they prove themselves they will be posted.

[Shock Wave]

That was an interesting read Paul. The conclusion I came to with respect to "rogue" decks, their place in T1, and the direction of the format are as follows:

"Rogue" deck: A collection of cards that create a unique, distinct archetype.

Does anyone recall attending a T1 tournament before the days of BD? If you do, you'll probably remember facing the most random decks ever. There are a few reasons for this: 1) T1 was a far more casual format 2) There was no such thing as "net decking" 3) Players seemed generally more inclined to win with their own ideas (imo). In such an underdeveloped environment, rogue ideas had extreme potential.

However, once you insert the big catalysts into the mix (the internet and competitive play), it becomes immediately apparant as to why rogue decks became all but extinct.

Thankfully, T1 hasn't made the transition to a professional format. If it were to happen, I promise every card would be tested and re-tested a hundred times over, and rogue decks would simply cease to exist. Today, it is still possible to innovate because some stones have been left unturned. However, players like Smmenen, the Paragons, and the majority of VAs on this board are currently in the process of exploring the uncharted waters this format has left.

Take Dragon for example. Sure, the combo was around, DicemanX got the ball rolling and I put the final pieces of the puzzle together. However, if it wasn't me, it would've been user X. Does anybody actually believe that if this was a professional format that Dragon would not have surfaced earlier? Another example is Draw7.dec . If Smmenen and Koen didn't stumble upon the realization that DR has a potential "brokenness factor", it would've been exploited by some other perceptive player.

If the pros were thrust into the T1 environment before either of these archetypes existed, they've would been all over these decks like a fat kid on a cupcake.

I am a strong supporter for TMD, but it's ironic how forums such as this one have contributed vastly to the demise of innovation in the format.

[Zherbus]

I am a strong supporter for TMD, but it's ironic how forums such as this one have contributed vastly to the demise of innovation in the format

Here's really how I see it:

Phase 1: TMD is birthed when the format's gauntlet consists of Keeper, 1 deck for each color (Suicide, Ophidian BBS, Stompy, Sligh, Parfait), Academy, and MAYBE Zoo.

Phase 2: Type 1 gets better exposure since TMD's birth through: TMD having better availability than it's predecessor BDominia, extended rotations, and stronger community building.

Phase 3: With more people in the format, more innovation will happen. Since more people will be discontent with the format remaining at 2 5-color decks, and 5 mono-colored decks, innovations that get noticed are less like "Ice Blue Zoo", "3 color Zoo", and "U/B Control" and more format reshaping like "TnT", "Masknought", and "Fish".

Phase 4: Because certain innovations reshaped the format, the standard of developing decks that are cute, neat, or just do the same thing as another deck in existance becomes moot, whereas (for example) a deck like 3cZoo was once a way to play a deck like Sligh and get around the cards that easily stopped Sligh. This is where the innovation standard has been raised. Personally, this is where I stopped playing WW as a secondary deck because format had grown beyond it's semi-casual status.

Phase 5: TMD's popularity has snow-balled, metagames grew from 20 person tourneys to 40, 50 to 160, and so forth. Innovation takes another step from a deck like OSE, Ankh Sligh, and TnT to Dragon, Tog, and Stax. Now not only are cute, neat, and redundancy not good enough for innovaters, but decks now need to be fast/potent enough to handle the newly established critical turn.

Phase 6: Innovation has slowed, but still progresses. Dragon, 4cControl, and Tog have all evolved to remain competitive in a metagame of newer threats such as Mind Slaver. However, the bar is set so high in this very diverse format that creating a new deck that can deal with the speed of the format AND handle the wide-array of variation on the formats threats is very difficult. This is where we are now. The innovations are more in the form of tweaks and alterations and less of building a deck from scratch. This is because of a higher standard and not from TMD itself.

On to another point: Does TMD as a community accept and reject decks based on tournament performance?

I would say no because using the search function will yield a huge 'what-the-hell' response to decks that managed a win but just suffer fundimental design flaws and then there are those that have yielded great interest without any tournament data whatsoever. Here I would give the community more credit in that they know when a deck is at least decent or not.

Which leads me to: Does TMD as a community accept and reject decks based on who posts it?

Unfortunately, this is how people work. Show me someone who has proven themselves to me and has always made sound judgements historically, and I'll show you someone that has credit with me. Will they always be right? No, but I will give them my time to hear what they have to say.

Show me someone who is unfamiliar to me and I'll show you someone I have yet to trust. If every fourth full member posted a deck, I would give them all good, hard looks. Have every fourth basic user post a deck and I'll give them the ol' click and back button routine until the 5% that are worth the attention get it.

[BreathWeapon]

Anything "new" usually falls between one of the other extremes and fades from memory, like Oshawa Stompy. With the exception of Hybrid decks, I don't think innovation in the format is going to lead anywhere right now.

This is just wrong. Every deck arch type was at one time an innovation. We are not playing the same decks today that we played one year ago. This is 'fuzzy logic' at its best. Surely you must recognize the anomaly in your contention.
Certainly we will not use the majority of magic cards in a viable build. But as new cards are created so are new synergies and uses for old cards. LED was ignored for quite some time and then was restricted. ESG is another card largely ignorred until the last six months. We can go on. New decks will most certainly be created and a few will flourish.
Do you rerally think you will playing against the same decks we have today, one year from now?
interesting that you should pull O. Stompy out of the pool to highlite your logic. I,mjsut spent the evening with Ray - its creator - and believe me when I say new innovations are in the works by the Oshawa crowd. When they prove themselves they will be posted.

I disagree, once the "Extremes" are established in T1 it will take some inconceivably powerful cards to "dethrone" the current "best" decks. Draw7, Dragon, Slavery and Tog aren't going anywhere for a long ... long time. There may be a solid number of innovations with Aggro or Hybrid decks in the future, but most of those decks will be taken from Type 2 or Extended. I just don't think we'll see a deck come out of left field. Feel free to prove me wrong, but short of the miraculous I think we'll be seeing a stable metagame for awhile.

[wuaffiliate]

I agree that we are at a creative crossroads so to say. We have so many viable archtypes right now, that it is indeed becoming harder and harder to trump them. Some may see that as a bad thing, but i disagree.

Why people complain when we have two dozen viable decks with other that just need to be tweaked to be competative is beyond me.

Rogue decks are what keep this format alive.

[Magus]

Rogue-(from encarta online)

"a vicious or uncontrolled animal that lives apart from the rest of its herd or group"

"acting independently and using unorthodox methods that often cause trouble"

Thats what Rogue means to me! a rogue animal has the same equipment as a regular one (sences, teath, claws) the same is true for magic.. (same cards available). Most deck in T1 use the same cards and play startagy. FOW is the glue.. p9 is broken.

Look at how slavery came to be..

we started off with zoo/mono decks that were fast and aggesive. They evolved into TNT and the early stacker Variants.. now useing the ever broken workshops they showed players how powerful they could be, and due to play preferance (there are 2 kinds of players in magic, Aggesers and controlers!) they took the workshop decks and turned them into one of the best control decks ever, the STAX variants.. then came the slaver.. Slaver is the ultimate control card, It breaks peoples backs if given even an Inch!

Look at Tog.. Grow decks at first looked like crazy zoo variants. After time and testing we found out that tog was a strong enough creature on his own and he became the center peice of the deck.

when ever a deck is hit with a restiction it useualy goes back to the step before it found the axed card (Dragon for example) when it lost entomb many people anounched it DOA but some stayed with it, it became ROGUE again! It started winning and people came back to it again.

Any Deck that isnt main stream is rogue.. From Affinity to a fish crazy fish Variant..

[bebe]

Innovation has slowed, but still progresses. Dragon, 4cControl, and Tog have all evolved to remain competitive in a metagame of newer threats such as Mind Slaver. However, the bar is set so high in this very diverse format that creating a new deck that can deal with the speed of the format AND handle the wide-array of variation on the formats threats is very difficult. This is where we are now.

I agree entirely. Despite the bar being high in the last few months a few new decks have emerged ...

FCG
Belcher
O. Stompy, Green power Rangers, WTF
4c control
Affinity

It could be argued that FCG is a deck tweak of gobo/sligh but a combo sligh is a new concept.
Belcher is the perfect illustration of my points. A new card created and new arch type developed. Belcher will not go away quickly although I expect it to evolve and resurface in a different package as there are problems with the current build.
O. Stompy, WTF, Green Power Rangers were decks created to take advantage of particular metas. They excelled against control, were playable against aggro and lost horribly to combo. This category of deck that is truly meta defined can and will resurface in new incarnations from time to time.
4c control is quite different today then it was one year ago. DoJ and
Exalted Angel and soon CoW have impacted the arch type. This is not your buddy's Keeper deck anymore. The innovations began with Morphling led to Cunning Wish and will continue with each new block as the deck reinvents itself to remain competitive.
Affinity might be a flash in the pan. It has glaring weaknesses but i'm not convinced that it will never be competitive. New cards might make this viable. Its initial wins aty larger venues were unexpected and we still have no consensus as to the correct mixture of cards otr the direction it should take. Reminds me of early Madness. Because there are clearly better choices out there now it is unlikely that the Paragons and Spikes will devote enough time to the deck to make it the best choice for awhile.

Shockwave

However, once you insert the big catalysts into the mix (the internet and competitive play), it becomes immediately apparant as to why rogue decks became all but extinct.

Thankfully, T1 hasn't made the transition to a professional format.

You make an excellent point but then call rogue decks extinct. Look at the professionals. They do innovate as each new block is released. If rogue is a new arch type with a new win condition then innovation is certainly not only possible but inevitable. The problem is, as Zherbus points out, that the standards are quite high. We have a body of very good decks to choose from so a new arch type needs to show that it can compete against the best that is currently available. I do not expect to see many new decks but I do expect to see some. We seem to dislike calling new decks rogue when in fact that is what they begin as.

[Zherbus]

I agree entirely. Despite the bar being high in the last few months a few new decks have emerged ...

FCG
Belcher
O. Stompy, Green power Rangers, WTF
4c control
Affinity

To be fair, FCG and Affinity were stolen from other formats, so I really don't feel they apply to the same extent. This is more or less actually true for Tog and U/G Madness I suppose...

4cControl is overhauling a deck, taking away its obsolete namesake, and giving a more current card selection that better reflects the T1 metagame.

So really, Belcher and those green machines are really the only innovations that I can think of made independantly of the type 1 community.

[dicemanx]

This is where we are now. The innovations are more in the form of tweaks and alterations and less of building a deck from scratch.

This quote from Zherbus pretty much says it all.

Innovation is very difficult because we have *identified* the most powerful and efficient cards and card combinations - we have a very good idea what the best pro-active and reactive disruption cards are, what the best card drawing engines are, and what the most efficient or effective creatures are. Now, it's mostly a matter of putting everything together into a combination that gives us the most synergy.

I pretty much no longer view decks by name or type (like Dragon, Slavery, Hulk, Keeper, EBA, Fish, or otherwise categories like aggro, combo, or control etc). Instead, I look at decks in terms of distinct "units" that happen to get combined in specific ways in various decks, many of which share those "units". For instance, Oshawa Stompy and Dragon might be considered entirely different decks, and yet they share a powerful fundamental unit - the Bazaar -Squee engine. Each deck then procceds to include further synergy in different ways - Dragon uses the Animate+WGD kill to go with the Bazaar, while adding Compulsion to further abuse the Squees. O.Stompy elects to use Survival and Mongrel to abuse Squee, and exploits Bazaar further via the madness mechanic. Other options have been tried without too much success as of yet - the Bazaar-Squee engine was inserted into both Stacker and Masknaught builds, although to be fair, Wayne (Moridar on TMD) was the runner-up in the Ontario vintage championships using a triple-hybrid deck. It was very innovative with respect to the combinations, but on a more fundamental level it was just combining well known and explored fundamental units in synergistic ways (Bazaar-Squee, Mask-naught, Workshop/Fat artifact creatures and Welder).

The questions is then, have we exhausted all the combinations?

[Shock Wave]

You make an excellent point but then call rogue decks extinct. Look at the professionals. They do innovate as each new block is released.

Well, do recall that I said "all but extinct". What I was alluding to was the fact that once a format makes the transition to the professional level, innovation hits rock bottom. The reason for this is that the professionals are the ones innovating now, and they immediately exploit the most powerful cards available.

Once the pros are "innovating", that's pretty much the end of innovation in the format.

[jpmeyer]

I've seen like four different definitions of "rogue" within this thread:

random (as in "You could go to a tourney 4 years ago and see all kinds of rogue decks)
metagame-specific
new
outside of the mainstream ("Dragon was rogue until it placed highly at Worlds")

So suffice to say, it's hard to tell what everyone is talking about since there's a lot of discussion on a lot of different topics but everyone's using the same words.

[Moridar]

Last time I played something rogue, I ended up 1-3 with what I thought was a solid build on the Kobold Combo.

Wayne

[Colossus]

Quote:
 "It's not a deck I've heard of, you can't possibly be a good enough player to make a good deck on your own, why not run (fill in the blank) instead."  
 This happens with the people I play against, and EVERYWHERE online.  
 
 
 Again, I've seen new ideas come to fruition on these boards. I think it depends very much on your presentation and preparation.

Admittedly I haven't submitted any of my type I decks here because I haven't gotten any of them tested and running well enough to be able to write an intelligent write up.  On the other hand I posted an extensive write up on a type II build on about 4 different forums, with analysis of how it did against the major archetypes of that type and got no feedback except "Just play ravager instead".

I think the appeal of rogue lies in that people want their own ideas to work out.  I mean, in the end I, and I assume others who like to play rogue don't want to say "I made a good build of Trinistax and rode it to the tourney win" they want to say "MY decdk won the tournement."
[/quote]

[Piggy]

There is the obvious problem of time which one needs to invest in discovering a viable deck, but one point which I haven't seen discussed here is the fact that it also costs money for most of the world's T1 players to get their deck developed to anywhere near "optimal".  My reasoning is that very few people have the resources(be it quality opponents, skill, etc) to be able to optimize a certain deck before their first tournament.  Since they can't do it themselves, they are left looking for the help of others to refine their deck.  Without some results to show promise, few (if any) will waste their time and effort on someone else's pile.

So, the easiest, or perhaps only, way to get a good amount of people to help with one's deck is to put up some results.  This is also problematic because I am sure there are plenty of good deck builders who don't have the skill to win in their first few tournaments.  However, before they can even get that far they need to put up enough cash to build the deck.  Thus they are left spending hundreds to put the deck together plus the $15-$20 for the mere chance of getting their deck recognition.

Obviously there are exceptions to this process.  For instance, some decks just seem like so much fun even in their unrefined stages that many are willing to throw it together and begin testing.  Other times, the designer can either personally know, or even be, one of the respected members of our T1 community.

In light of all the problems addressed in this topic, i really can't blame a single person for not trying to start their deck from scratch.

[Meddling Mike]

In my experience there are three reasons why a rogue deck can win and thrive:

1. The metagame is extremely unbalanced. If one deck entirely dominates the format, anti-that deck will obviously have some game if you're the first to use it. After that, the format will become The deck and anti-the deck and then some deck that goes 60/40 against both wins the tourney.

2. The deck resembles something that already exists, perhaps running somewhat sub-optimal cards or game plan, but when the opponent sets up there game plan around a certain strategy, an unplanned upon card can throw a wrench in their plan. In the mean time they will play against the deck they think you're playing.

A friend of mine was playing an odd version of TPS that had some Keeperesque aspects to it. The control slaver player assumed the deck was TPS and his game plan was to sacrifice all his resources, get platinum angel into play and ride her to victory, he was quite surprised when she got STP'd and he would lose shortly afterwards.

Samite Healer's highlander keeper deck had a similar effect in my opinion, it had some keeper staples, so it appeared to be keeper based on the first few cards, the opponent would play spells with Samite only having a single blue mana open and considering himself safe from Mana drain, but would be harshly surprised by a disrupt. Also, people played around the counters that he did not have, assuming that he had a mana drain and FoW when in reality he was only running one copy of each and hadn't drawn them. That said, I still feel that it takes an amazing keeper player like Samite to pull that off.

3. The strategy is so original that even the most prepared players are unable to formulate a correct strategy for winning against your deck. They may not be aware of your win condition and allow your combo to mistakenly go off, they may not counter the correct spells not realizing how criticial it is to your strategy, etc. etc. It also helps that they may have a very difficult time sideboarding, or they may not even have the proper tools to deal with your deck in sideboard. I think this may have been the case with control slaver, a combo/control deck where the victory condition can be very difficult to decipher if you're not farmiliar with the deck. I'm sure a large number of people didn't even think to counter TfK the first time they saw control slaver.

[defector]

There have been some community efforts for rogue, remember "we" built 7/10 split on this site, I think thats a good example of rogue developemnt within the community.  Some of us could only add something useless, like I cut welder, added white and lost bad.  Others had more important thinsg to say, but many people on TMD hit on the idea of "Sundering Titan is a beast" at about the same time.  There will be more rogue decks, just as once viable decks will inevitably die off in the face of new cards.  The post GAT era has seen maybe 7 strong archetypes emerge and maybe another dozen or so solid teir 2 ones come along. We don't move as fast as the pros would, but we're not pros, I'm a scmuck secretary going back to grad school with a girlfriend, I don't have the time or money to do what the pros do.  Anyway, excellent article.
defector

[bebe]

Let's do some history.
During the Black Summer, Necrodecks were populating 70% of all tournaments. The Turbo-Stasis was designed to throw Necropotence decks for a loop by halting it's creatures and taking advantage of the deck's vulnerabilty. The deck became a force to reckon with.
O. Stompy is a recent example of this. Ray created the deck to target Landstill and control but not auto-lose to everything else.


The metagame deck is, as you  know, a type of deck where you are playing designed to take out other types of decks that dominate the meta. They were known as foil and hate decks when I started Magic.
The decks targeted for metagame usage are popular tournament decks, weak in a particular area. A metagame deck focuses on destroying or disabling a popular decks offense and/or defense by way of color hosers, card type hosers, or just cards that work well against a certain deck. Thus we have FoWs and Null Rods running rampant. I built a deck that was based around Chalice and Blood Moon when Long dominated. I beat Long and lost to 50% of the other decks out there.  


Building a metagame deck is not as easy  as it sounds. You can't just throw a bunch of hosers in a pile, add land, and go beat Slaver. No,
first you must test against Slaver many times, and play Slaver
yourself to inderstand its weakenesses. You need to find out how the deck works, what exactly it's weaknesses are, and how they can be exploited.
This gives you a foundation for building your metagame deck.
You want to playtest your deck intensively. Run it against the targeted deck. Now we must remember that there are other decks in the meta as well. So we must deal with these as well.

When your main deck becomes a huge sideboard, devoted almost entirely to one purpose, defeating the targeted deck you will run into difficulties.
If you come to a tournament expecting the kind of deck you targeted, and find large quantities of it, you're in good shape. However, at one large venue I chose Charbelcher expecting FCG, combo and Slaver. I got all Fish and control. Everyone will not be play the decks you target.

To this end we cannot exclusively main deck for a single target.
We need to have a portion of the deck and sideboard devoted to the
variety of other decks played frequently in tournaments.
This does not mean having a sideboard solely aimed at hosing aggro-control decks with your  metagame deck. But your deck can't simply shrivel up and die at the first sign of aggro-control. A versatile metagame deck should be able to crush the targeted deck, yet still adequately deal with other deck types. Of course, you can't be prepared for everything, so it stands to reason that your deck could get beaten by something nobody has ever seen before.
 
The metagame is always a random genre in type 1 and staying on top of the latest tournament ideas is crucial. It is a great breeding ground for
completely original and immensely fun decks. Building and
playing with the metagame is not an easy task. It's hard to build an
effective deck, and easy to lose the focus of your creation. But with the
proper construction and attention, a knowledge of the metagame deck becomes the essential tool in building a new arch type.