Are these really 'decks to beat'?

[Grand Inquisitor]

For reference:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6182

Here's the list:

4C Control
7/10 Split
Affinity
Bazaar Madness
Belcher
Control Slaver
Long Death
Meandeck Doomsday
Meandeck Oath
Mono Blue
Psychatog
Stacker
Tools 'n Tubbies
TPS
Trinistax
U/G Madness (Budget!)
U/R Fish

I want to emphasize that these are decks to beat...for November...2004

I'll be honest, I have no idea what criteria Pete Hoefling uses to create this list.  However, I have some semblance of where the metagame is going, and there is some fat to trim here...

4cc

This is obviuosly a great deck that slips in and out of the metagame depending on what else is being played.  However, given the rise of crucible and sundering titan, no sane person would play with this manabase.  Further, it has poor matchups against Oath, Combo, and Aggro Workshop, which are all big players right now.

Affinity

It isn't that the deck is underpowered.  It's that it dies to everybody's sideboard worse than other artifact strategies.  I know null rods are sort of in short supply lately, but this still has troubles with welder and shaman which you should see game 1 a few times during a tournament.

Bazaar Madness

And I quote...

10th place, 2004-10-23 Star City P9 II Richmond

Kowal, your my boy, but this is a shameless plug.  This deck was a GREAT metagame choice three months ago, when it won several medium size tournies around here.  Now its just road kill trying in vane to race oath and dig for its artifact mutation against workshops.  I'll admit, historically, this is a very underrated deck, but now is not the time for its revival.  I miss Bowers too, but this is ridiculous.

Meandeck Doomsday
Meandeck Oath

These are perfectly viable decks.  Oath is (provenly) overrated in the hands of a net-decker, but these are fine choices.  My goat is the fact that for a general list of decks they choose to preface each with 'meandeck'.  I understand the distinction when talking about different lists, or picking apart tournament results, but this is grandstanding with benefit to no one.  I know meandeck and SCG are like 2nd cousins, but there's gotta be better perks they can offer you.  You'll notice 4cc didn't become Germbus, and Tog didn't become Rocky Mountain Hulk, etc...

Mono Blue

Again, a deck that was a great metagame choice in its time, but is there any reason to play this over Oath?  Chalice Blue may have a better combo matchup, but this is a serious question, doesn't Oath just make this inferior?

U/G Madness (Budget!)
U/R Fish

Perhaps I just haven't played in big enough tournaments lately (Sept Waterbury was my last).  Are these decks that people consider when facing a metagame knowing ther'll be budget players?  Stax and Oath could really care less.  Sure Slaver, and Combo are concerned, but compared with the spring and summer, they're having a party.

I can see this as a dangled carrot for people just getting into the format, but I would think MonoB dragon, Gobbos, or even Landstill would be more appropriate if they were trying to be comtemporary.


So these are my gripes.  Anyone is welcome to give me a healthy dose of reality if I'm completely off base, but at least from what testing I've done, and the tournaments I've been to recently, I think this list could be improved.

[Smmenen]

Meandeck Doomsday
Meandeck Oath

These are perfectly viable decks.  Oath is (provenly) overrated in the hands of a net-decker, but these are fine choices.  My goat is the fact that for a general list of decks they choose to preface each with 'meandeck'.  I understand the distinction when talking about different lists, or picking apart tournament results, but this is grandstanding with benefit to no one.  I know meandeck and SCG are like 2nd cousins, but there's gotta be better perks they can offer you.  You'll notice 4cc didn't become Germbus, and Tog didn't become Rocky Mountain Hulk, etc...
.

I'm not sure that the distinction ISN"T being used to distinguish lists.  meandeck Oath means Akroma + SOTN and Pristine SB - not sapphire Oath of years past with Morphling and Weaver or Collossi.

Meandeck Doomsday is also Beacon kill.  In this case, doesn't the name tip off the deck?  And you agree that's fine.  I'm confused.  How is that grandstanding if the name is used to distinguish the deck from other variants?

[Grand Inquisitor]

First, I'm pretty sure the list focuses on general archetypes as points of interest, not specifics between versions of said archetypes.  Again, I don't really know the intentions of our boy Pete, so I could be wrong.

Secondly, the preface is only useful when comparing xxxxOath vs. another Oath deck.  When picking out archetypes, it isn't important that it was developed by one team or another.  Especially, since there is so much simultaneous innovation.

I'm not saying it's wrong, per se.  Simply extraneous, and therefore detrimental to someone new to the format trying to understand what's going on.

[Nosre]

I really like the idea of the "Decks to Beat" list, but it does need to be trimmed down.  This list is going to be most useful to a new player, and therefore you'd want to avoid overwhelming them.  Honestly, do you really need to proxy up U/G Madness in your test gauntlet?  Or affinity?  Shave those off and play some more games vs. oath or 5/3 instead, that'd be much more helpful.  Perhaps Pete could throw some tier divisions in there.  People thinking there are 7 equally viable control decks is not helpful.

Also, people are talking about 5/3 all the time but it's labelled wrong:  
Stacker
by Corey Canfield
4th place, 2004-10-23 Star City P9 II Richmond

@meandeck <>
I don't care about the tag.  But I do think it isn't needed.  Is anyone going to think regrowth and timetwister if they just see "Doomsday" instead of "Meandeck Doomsday?"  And there haven't exactly been a ton of oath lists with spikes in top 8's recently...  The arguement that Meandeck <> denotes a specific version doesn't hold much water when there's only one version thats viable.

[MaxxMatt]

The "Decks to Beat" , IMHO, are as usual all the decks that ( as usual again... ) can play a lot of games "by itself".

On my list there are obviously MW.dec, Atog, C.Slavery, Oath and Storm.dec.

ALL the other decks are extremely good or extremely bad depending on which player decide to play them or which metagame they would face.

Pete Hoefling seemed to gave some crfedit to any possible archetipes that performed well somewhere and sometimes and for  some unknown reasons.

On the other hand, his lists usually cover almost all the "things that you should be prepared to face " when you are going to play at some huge event.

IMHO, It is good to have all the best decks of a period in a well know internet page to list a quick Gauntlet when needed.

 

@@@@

I played the usual 4C-C's manabae in a field of Titans.
Sometimes they steal you some lands, but you have 2 or 3 CoB to survive. Sometimes they canno't put Titan in play because your Removals for Welders are far quicker than their Summoning Sickness. CoW helps a lot and those two decks have a similar amount of bombs to afford.

A lot of ReBs help a lot to equalize the TPS' matchup and if you are able to slow him down, the matchup went, ex abrupto, to your favor.

Against Oath you are perfectly right. At now, 4C-C cannot compete with it. But.. only AT NOW...

@@@@@@@@@

[Whatever Works]

I'm not sure that the distinction ISN"T being used to distinguish lists.  meandeck Oath means Akroma + SOTN and Pristine SB - not sapphire Oath of years past with Morphling and Weaver or Collossi.

Meandeck Doomsday is also Beacon kill.  In this case, doesn't the name tip off the deck?  And you agree that's fine.  I'm confused.  How is that grandstanding if the name is used to distinguish the deck from other variants?

90%+ of Oath decks run Akroma + SOTN etc... People havent used Weaver/Morphling for YEARS!!! Meandeck was the first group to put up a nice list, but other people did think of Akroma/SOTN so i find it extremely ennoying that Meandeck can take complete credit for an entire archtype just because they published the first SCG article, and had success with a deck played by alot of people.

Meandeck doomsday also is a bit much, because doomsday decks were around prior to its restriction, and came back the second it was unrestricted, and the 5 card pile has about 3 cards that are locks regardless of the kill, and beacon isnt reason enough to completely declare the deck 1 teams soul creation... then again i never liked Smmenenblue either...

what completely strikes me with the list is the absence of dragon... its not the best deck currently, but it is alot more competitive then half the decks on the list. Also the list includes trinistax, but it doesnt include Crons version of stacks that is a solid deck.

[Smmenen]

I'm not sure that the distinction ISN"T being used to distinguish lists.  meandeck Oath means Akroma + SOTN and Pristine SB - not sapphire Oath of years past with Morphling and Weaver or Collossi.

Meandeck Doomsday is also Beacon kill.  In this case, doesn't the name tip off the deck?  And you agree that's fine.  I'm confused.  How is that grandstanding if the name is used to distinguish the deck from other variants?

90%+ of Oath decks run Akroma + SOTN etc... People havent used Weaver/Morphling for YEARS!!! Meandeck was the first group to put up a nice list, but other people did think of Akroma/SOTN so i find it extremely ennoying that Meandeck can take complete credit for an entire archtype just because they published the first SCG article, and had success with a deck played by alot of people.

Meandeck doomsday also is a bit much, because doomsday decks were around prior to its restriction, and came back the second it was unrestricted, and the 5 card pile has about 3 cards that are locks regardless of the kill, and beacon isnt reason enough to completely declare the deck 1 teams soul creation... then again i never liked Smmenenblue either...

what completely strikes me with the list is the absence of dragon... its not the best deck currently, but it is alot more competitive then half the decks on the list. Also the list includes trinistax, but it doesnt include Crons version of stacks that is a solid deck.

I find it extremely annoying that people still think that there is "innovation" in this format.  

The truth is that there is not simultanous innovation.  Aside from my team, the only innovation I've seen in the last few months is "Cerebral Assassin," "5/3," Suicide Virus and that cracy U/B workshop deck that Rich Mattuzzio runs.

Face the facts here.  I played Dday in Chicago when it had been legal for nearly a month in a half.  Even if other people had come up with Dday lists, and even if they had come up with Dday lists with Beacon, they didn't play it - why?  Probaby becuase they either thought it was shit or didn't have a good list.  The same goes for Oath.

No one on this board actually was going to play Oath.  You know how I can tell?  The major talked about archetype where most of the people are talking about in a thread on this board is always the one deck that never gets played.  People on these boards I have found generally only play decks that have already put up numbers.  

The truth is that before my team played Oath, MOST people thought the deck was bad (and many still do).  So I'm annoyed by people thinking that they came up with their deck simultaneously.  Face the facts, most decks are made by a very few poeple.  Even when decks are developed on message boards like these, usually, only one or two key people are actually making the decks.  

This thread is actually quite pointless as it is Phil Stanton, not Pete who puts together the deck to beat lists.  If you have gripes, address them to Dr. Sylvan.

My gripe is that the gauntlet isn't perfect.  

The purpose of a guantlet is to stress test various strategies.  For that reason I'd use the following guantlet:

4C Control
7/10 Split
Bazaar Madness
Belcher
Control Slaver
Dragon
Long Death
Meandeck Doomsday
Meandeck Oath
Mono Blue
Psychatog
Stacker
TPS
Trinistax
U/R Fish

These decks all provide a stress "test."

Madness asks how one deals with really really fast creatures.  Belcher and Long test speed comob.  4cc tests the obvious.  Mono Blue tests the counter wall.  Stacker and Trinstax test the 3Sphere and crucible play.  TPS and Dragon test combo-control and UR fish tests Null Rod.dec.

[Zherbus]

Also, a word of semantics: "Decks to Beat" means more that these are decks you're likely to run into. No matter what the popularity or well-being of 4cControl, it'll show up quite often.

[jpmeyer]

It's not necessarilly "decks to play."  It's "decks to beat."

[Yokomoto]

No one on this board actually was going to play Oath. You know how I can tell? The major talked about archetype where most of the people are talking about in a thread on this board is always the one deck that never gets played. People on these boards I have found generally only play decks that have already put up numbers.

Im sorry, but me and a couple of friends had actually planned on coming up with a good Oath list. Soon as orchard came out we thought of Oath. But simply because a team came up with a list that uses different creatures i think its bullshyt they get all the credit.

But i'm straying away from the fact of the post. I want to stress that TnT is long outdated and an obselite deck that no one plays anymore. Everything else on the list looks fine. But its missing a few things like Food Chain and Workshop aggro decks like 5/3.

[Smmenen]

I'm not sure that the distinction ISN"T being used to distinguish lists.  meandeck Oath means Akroma + SOTN and Pristine SB - not sapphire Oath of years past with Morphling and Weaver or Collossi.

Meandeck Doomsday is also Beacon kill.  In this case, doesn't the name tip off the deck?  And you agree that's fine.  I'm confused.  How is that grandstanding if the name is used to distinguish the deck from other variants?

90%+ of Oath decks run Akroma + SOTN etc... People havent used Weaver/Morphling for YEARS!!! .

Notice how I said "and Collossi."  

Look. I know lots of people came up with Oath lists.  Look at the mana drain posts on U/G Oath.  There were like 8 pages of Oath discussion with Orchard.  That isn't my point entirely.  I was trying to show that despite hte discussion, people still, by and large, wouldn't play it.  Why?  becuase, and i'm repeating myself, it is axiomatic that the most discussed "new deck" here is almost always the least played in a tournament IF it has never put up in big numbers before.  Understand that simple idea before replying further.

[JACO]

First, I'm pretty sure the list focuses on general archetypes as points of interest, not specifics between versions of said archetypes.  Again, I don't really know the intentions of our boy Pete, so I could be wrong.

Secondly, the preface is only useful when comparing xxxxOath vs. another Oath deck.  When picking out archetypes, it isn't important that it was developed by one team or another.

I think you are wrong. When you look at the 'Decks to Beat' page, you're looking at specific lists. MeanDeck Oath is by far the most played Oath deck right now, and you better be prepared to face that specific build, and be able to beat it. If someone is using 4 Mana Leaks, Akroma, SOTN, and 1 Tropical, then that's probably a good indication that they're playing MeanDeck's Oath. If they're playing 4 Duress, Demonic, and no Intutions, then they're probably playing DOA, aka BHWC Oath. If they're playing an almost exact duplicant of DoomsdayDevice, then that particular build is relevant to your playtesting.

90%+ of Oath decks run Akroma + SOTN etc... People havent used Weaver/Morphling for YEARS!!! Meandeck was the first group to put up a nice list, but other people did think of Akroma/SOTN so i find it extremely ennoying that Meandeck can take complete credit for an entire archtype just because they published the first SCG article, and had success with a deck played by alot of people.

Exactly who was playing the Akroma + SOTN kill, 14 counters (including Mana Leak), and where were they at, and what tournaments did they Top 8 with? I'm curious.

Meandeck doomsday also is a bit much, because doomsday decks were around prior to its restriction, and came back the second it was unrestricted, and the 5 card pile has about 3 cards that are locks regardless of the kill, and beacon isnt reason enough to completely declare the deck 1 teams soul creation

Yes, Doomsday decks were around prior to its restriction, and they sucked balls. Where you or anybody else talking about a kill condition of Beacon of Destruction before MeanDeck (and please don't cite ShortBus, who bit it from MeanDeck)? A fundamental difference such as kill condition certainly warrants naming a deck differently, if the key cards in the build differ.

Im sorry, but me and a couple of friends had actually planned on coming up with a good Oath list. Soon as orchard came out we thought of Oath. But simply because a team came up with a list that uses different creatures i think its bullshyt they get all the credit.

I'm sorry too, for having to read your post. Who gives a shit if you and your friends thought about using Oath + Forbidden Orchard? Even an untrained monkey can see the synergy between the two, and it was widely bandied about in a few threads here and elsewhere. MeanDeck was the first to play it to wide success in a major tournament, and their formula of 14 counters, including Mana Leak, coupled with Intuition + AK, as well as Akroma + SOTN, makes it 'their' build. They then shared their reasoning for everything in Steve's article. They didn't have to do this, and give you all a hand in what you're going to play for your next tournament, but they did.

I can't believe I just defended MeanDeck. It's just that some of these posts are so stupid and based on irrational thought. That being said, the 'Decks to Beat' isn't necessarily a list of the best decks, it's a list of what you can expect to run across in a tournament, but it is missing a few major decks (5/3, the Italians UBR-T1Tog, etc.).

[Saucemaster]

I can't believe I just stood up for MeanDeck. It's just that some of these posts are so damn stupid.

Welcome to the dark side, my friend.  If there's anything we can do to make your stay more comfortable, please let us know.

Also, I don't know what the big deal is with Oppenheimer.  When I was a kid I had a great idea for a big bomb that could destroy cities and I'd never even HEARD of the atom.  Why does he get the credit?

Yeah, more seriously, decks-to-beat: Publish or perish, folks.  Honestly I don't care whether SCG uses the "Meandeck" tag in front of the deckname or not, but as far as they're concerned that IS the name of the decklists that they're posting.  Meandeck Oath was listed as such on the decklists for SCG2, and Meandeck Doomsday was named as such in JP's article and Steve's report.  It's not SCG's job to make editorial decisions regarding what the names of the decks are that they list--they're just putting up the lists they have, with the names they have.  Feel free to blame us (Meandeck) for naming them that in the first place, though.  That seems entirely valid to me (and I'm not being facetious here, either).  It's not SCG's (or Pip's) fault, is all I'm saying.  They also list "Trinistax" as opposed to "Workshop Prison", and "TPS" instead of "Ritual-based combo-controllish non-Long Tendrils.dec".  They publish what they are given.

[TheFram]

Let's not forget that SCG has clear monetary interest in posting these lists as it does. Older decks may be left on in order to plug cards that would otherwise not sell. Budget decks are left on to convince people to buy cards even if they would not buy power.

I do agree that naming Oath and Doomsday "Meandeck" is not particularly useful. However, I think the other innacuracies are predicated by business interest. Really, the page would be more aptly titled "Decks to Buy."

I know this is a rather cynical perspective and that SCG does support T1 heavily, but they try (and deserve) to make some dime off that support. I for one think that the business interest (at least in part) legitimates most of the innacuracies.

[Raven Fire]

Im sorry, but me and a couple of friends had actually planned on coming up with a good Oath list. Soon as orchard came out we thought of Oath. But simply because a team came up with a list that uses different creatures i think its bullshyt they get all the credit.

It's nice that you were planning to come up with a good Oath list, but MeanDeck actually did it, playtested the hell out of it, paid their entry fees to a major event, had the guts to play an unproven deck, and then completely dominated that event.  If you don't like the name, there's an easy solution: You and your friends can go grab a couple spots in the T8 of a power event and we can all discuss Yokomoto.dec for the next month or so.

As for the original post: I'd rather see too many decks posted than too few.  Sure, there is some excess fat in that gauntlet, but some of those decks are still going to show up in less competitive tournaments.  Many environments are much slower to change than the SCG circuit or TMD events.  I guess I'm just glad they have that section because I frequently link that page for newbies who want to see the basic decks that are being played in Vintage.

[Nosre]

That being said, the 'Decks to Beat' isn't necessarily a list of the best decks, it's a list of what you can expect to run across in a tournament, but it is missing a few major decks (5/3, the Italians UBR-T1Tog, etc.).

My gripe is that it portrays all of those decks as being equally viable.  If it's labelled a list of decks that see play in type 1, that's fine.  It's labelled "Decks to Beat" though, and some of them aren't important matchups whatsoever.  It needs some tier divisions, at least.  

And 5/3 is on there, labelled "stacker."

[Dr. Sylvan]

Okay, to clarify, since no one seems to know this: I give Pete the entire DTB, and have for most of my term as an SCG Featured Writer. So far I can't remember him adding or subtracting an archetype when I didn't email him an update. For the last month or so I've been less on top of the latest innovations, so I got some suggestions from Kowal on which lists to update, and promptly ignored some of his selections of which lists to put up. So let's put the flames where they're due: at me. :)

That said, Pete did change some of the deck names: I sent in "Oath of Druids" and "Doomsday", and Pete altered them to their present form. I don't see a problem with the Meandeck header since that is the team's specifically-designed list; I stuck with generalized archetype names to make it easier for someone who was looking for a deck to find it without reading the entire list of archetypes. Consider it a trivial favor to the uninitiated, but I don't mind Pete's executive decision and I don't think it's a big deal.

Some of the lists are older or less recently successful. I was tempted to remove UGmad and Affinity, but each has its merits, and UGmad (as a specifically budget list from Shannon) I felt should stay on as an alternative to Fish for maybe another month. They're not exactly the biggest factor in the metagame, but I try not to be too picky here.

It kinda annoys me that I have TPS, Doomsday, and DeathLong... but not enough to insist that only one Storm list belongs on there. Menendian by himself makes it difficult to ignore combo in this format, since you will be playing against it in the T8. :)

The 4CC list was mentioned. It is also old. While I did this, I noticed that my October report will feature ZERO 4CC decks. I didn't have a very recent build (Kowal suggested Z's Waterbury list, but I didn't see one in his report thread) available to me. So arguably, I could've dug for one in September to refresh it.

Please keep posting inquiries and suggestions. I'll be back to a computer probably at around 7 PM (CST) to see who's still ticked.

[Razvan]

Im sorry, but me and a couple of friends had actually planned on coming up with a good Oath list. Soon as orchard came out we thought of Oath. But simply because a team came up with a list that uses different creatures i think its bullshyt they get all the credit.

It's nice that you were planning to come up with a good Oath list, but MeanDeck actually did it, playtested the hell out of it, paid their entry fees to a major event, had the guts to play an unproven deck, and then completely dominated that event.

I think it's that performance that warrants the name Meandeck to that list. 14 counters were available in a deck for a long time, as multiple decks use the trio of FoW, Drain and Mana Leak. The draw engine is nothing new, and neither are the creatures (even if Spirit of the night wasn't widely used in the last little while, right when Oath of Druids came out, it was the biggest safe creature in the game)... but putting it all together, and taking a shot (even though with testing, it was NOT an unproven deck by ANY means, as there were dedicated Oath players before, and all the way to, the printing of Forbidden Orchard)... anyhow, that deserves the meandeck name on top, since they clearly dominated the event (even if Jacob was only recruited that day).

[Dozer]

[rant] All this Meandeck-tag bitching annoys the hell out of me. I thought we had that already covered? Any team that builds a version of any deck puts their name-tag on it. Sometimes it looks preposterous, like when 1-2 cards get changed. But even then, it's their build. I even like that more than giving a deck an undecipherable code-name (Holy Tommy Gun, anyone?) instead of naming it by function and version (i.e. Team). [/end rant]

Anyway, for everybody who is complaining about the "Decks to beat"-title:
a) You have to prepare for any one of these decks in a general metagame.
b) Just take it as "gauntlet" and be content.

Maybe Pete would even agree to changing the name to "The Vintage Gauntlet", even though it's not necessary.

Dozer

[JACO]

That being said, the 'Decks to Beat' isn't necessarily a list of the best decks, it's a list of what you can expect to run across in a tournament, but it is missing a few major decks (5/3, the Italians UBR-T1Tog, etc.).

My gripe is that it portrays all of those decks as being equally viable.  If it's labelled a list of decks that see play in type 1, that's fine.  It's labelled "Decks to Beat" though, and some of them aren't important matchups whatsoever.  It needs some tier divisions, at least.  

And 5/3 is on there, labelled "stacker."

They are not all equally viable. That is your job to figure out; what will be the best decks to play in a given tournament, based on the previous month's worth of tournament showings, local tendecies, etc. SCG is just laying out decks you can expect to run across, not the different tiers of decks in a given week or month.

[wizmentor]

Yeah, more seriously, decks-to-beat: Publish or perish, folks.  Honestly I don't care whether SCG uses the "Meandeck" tag in front of the deckname or not, but as far as they're concerned that IS the name of the decklists that they're posting.  Meandeck Oath was listed as such on the decklists for SCG2, and Meandeck Doomsday was named as such in JP's article and Steve's report.  It's not SCG's job to make editorial decisions regarding what the names of the decks are that they list--they're just putting up the lists they have, with the names they have.  Feel free to blame us (Meandeck) for naming them that in the first place, though.  That seems entirely valid to me (and I'm not being facetious here, either).  It's not SCG's (or Pip's) fault, is all I'm saying.  They also list "Trinistax" as opposed to "Workshop Prison", and "TPS" instead of "Ritual-based combo-controllish non-Long Tendrils.dec".  They publish what they are given.

well said.  Personally, I like the Meandeck designations.  However, many meandeckers
don't seem to understand why others don't.  In the past 6 months, we been given
SmmemmenBlue, Meandeck Titan, Meandeck Oath, Meandeck this, Meandeck that,...

I completely understand why they do this, and have no problem with it, but it does
come off as Arrogant.  Osyp came out with a version of Affinity which splashed
Green to SB oxidize and Viridian Shaman - very different stuff.  He did not call
it "Osyp Affinity" (don't give him any ideas).  Ditto for Kibler, it's not called
"Kibler Affinity."  Kai Budde has come up with many decks (and won with them),
 and yet there not a bunch of decks named after him or his team.

That's it, it comes off as arrogant, so people post complaints - that's what people
do.  Interestingly, meandeckers don't come off as arrogant at all in their articles (unless
they're talking about shortbus!)

As for the actually topic of this thread, I agree that too many decklists is better than
too few.

Peace,
     wizmentor

[Xman]

Whether or not people have a problem with a deck called "Meandeck Island" or whatever, You have to look at the concepts behind the deck.  A name is a name.  While yes, it can bother me at times, I look past it.  You have to look past the name to see the deck.  When youc an look at it, understand WHY people chose those cards for those slots, then you can begin to improve on the deck.  I am not saying this is easy (look at longdeath), as most decks we get do not have a lot of room for improvement, or it is just a couple of cards (Rebuild compared to Hurkyl's Recall in Longdeath).  Thats just how it is.

The list of decks to beat come in handy a lot, because you can alwasy count on some Average Joe just taking the list & building, then running it at a tourny.  That is one reason that of all the "MeanOath" at SCG3, it didn't T8.  They couldn't play it as well as Doug or Smmenen or the othersdid at SCG2.  Not saying they are bad players, but they probably made play mistakes from a  lack of testing.

Also, I agree with Smmenen on this fact.

My gripe is that the gauntlet isn't perfect.

The purpose of a guantlet is to stress test various strategies. For that reason I'd use the following guantlet:

4C Control
7/10 Split
Bazaar Madness
Belcher
Control Slaver
Dragon
Long Death
Meandeck Doomsday
Meandeck Oath
Mono Blue
Psychatog
Stacker
TPS
Trinistax
U/R Fish

These decks all provide a stress "test."

As he said, they are not decks to beat, but a gauntlet.  Also, they are what you can expect to see as general builds when going into an unkown meta.  If I see someone playing Mono-U, then I would assume it is the list from SCG, or pretty close to it.  These work and help the local meta, but again, could be expanded.  This is the case with ALL the decks over on SCG in the "decks to beat" category.  And I see it as a "decks to expect" category more than anything else.

Edit: Did I just defend Meandeck also?  Well, sometimes they are wrong (though I don't think they will admit it.  Ever.) and sometimes they are right (more right than wrong in general).

[CrazyCarl]

Innovate and create new decks and you too can name them whatever the hell you want!

[Kowal]

I'd rather stifle innovation.

[rozetta]

I'd rather stifle innovation.

Ah, so you're playing nullrod.dec

[kirdape3]

He's making reference to a much older time on these forums where Azhrei and Rakso would be shooting down every random n00b because they were indeed horrible and the n00b would reply 'OMG STFU YOU'RE STIFLING INNOVATION!!!!111ELEVEN' or they'd go 'ur so elitist and gay' or something.

[Denney The Third]

The list posted on SGC is definatly a you might play against this list.
MOre likely 2-3 of these decks are gonna be every where in a major tournament while a few of others and the occasional random unexpected deck will run rampant through everything.

Decks you SHOULD gauntlet test around:
Anything with Meandeck in front of it.
Oath decks.
Fish/landstill, w/e You wanna call it.
4cc
stax

A few if not all of these decks will be played by nearly 80% of a tournaments participants. People either wont let go or will entdeck like crazy for a chance at that pretty lotus or moxen. Also people stick to what has and will win.

[Pern]

Where you or anybody else talking about a kill condition of Beacon of Destruction before MeanDeck

There are messages on the Hadley board about the Doomsday Beacon deck from early October,
originating with Chris Tourloukis, who certainly has no access to Meandeck or Shortbus.
There is definitely simultaneous innovation.

[rozetta]

Where you or anybody else talking about a kill condition of Beacon of Destruction before MeanDeck

There are messages on the Hadley board about the Doomsday Beacon deck from early October,
originating with Chris Tourloukis, who certainly has no access to Meandeck or Shortbus.
There is definitely simultaneous innovation.

It's a shame that this innovation isn't happening publicly on these boards like it used to a few years ago. Seriously, you're either somehow lucky enough to be in a team who is actively researching and therefore you can help brainstorming these ideas or you're stuck reading half-baked "I have another fish/tog/gat build, what do you think?" or "no, don't close this, it's not really sui" threads and then reading about cool new ideas a month or two after the fact (in most cases). Dammit, I can get more up-to-date info on competitive, pro-designed Type 2 decks than I can on the format I actually play (which does not even have the same "seriousness" attached to it, so I still don't completely understand where all the fuss and need for secrecy comes from). I really miss participating in innovation discussions on these boards.

[Denney The Third]

Most "teams" Keep their new deck ideas secret so they dont get hated out and so that the "meta-game" is taken by suprise.
This is how they players make money to buy new cards to make decks to make money..etc.
Secrecy can be the key to victory, and has been multiple times in the past.