Query: Do you think there is a lack of consensus about Basic Propositions In T1?

[Smmenen]

A number of things have made me wonder:

It has dawned upon me that the player base has gone through a huge recyling recently.  A very large proportion of Vintage most reliable players have dropped from the scene.  Of the original paragons, I am all that is now left in this game competitively, really (I guess Rian plays, but that's it). 

Reading the 5c stax thread and reading a thread in the SCG forums, it occurred to me, basic, simple propositions are highly contested in Vintage right now.

This is in very stark contrast to this time last year.  2004 was the year when the metagame was most consolidated.  I was able to trace the metagame as a highly consolidated and highly understandable pattern from tournament to tournament,

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/245

And witness the confusion that exists now.  The metagame is highly inbred, but there seems to be widespread disagreement over very simple propositions, or, at the least a lack of knowledge concerning the arguments.

I am wondering: should the player base try and do better about articulating the arguments behind cards/deck choices and the like and less just posting decklists?  I think so.  I think we should see more cost/benefit analysis and less here is decklist and brief sketch of whether a card is good or not.

Angrypheldagrif said this in the SCG forum:

Fish is dead. Storm combo is dead. The current 'Fish' is nothing more than a lot of hate packed into a blue/white Fishy shell. Belcher is much better than any storm combo, and even that I don't think is good. Don't tell me about Menendian's T8. I've seen him succeed with so many bad decks I just assume he's going to win most times. If any of the other 3 guys playing GrimLong had gone anywhere T8ish it might be different, but as-is both decks are long gone.

He bashes my deck and decks I've played before, but here is a list he posted recently:
Gilded Claw v2.0, The Nexus

1 Vampiric Tutor
3 Meddling Mage
1 Tolarian Academy
2 Intuition
1 Crop Rotation
2 Crucible of Worlds
1 Mindslaver
1 Arcbound Crusher
1 Strip Mine
1 Mind's Eye
1 Memory Jar
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Tinker
4 Goblin Welder
1 Duplicant
1 Triskelion
4 City of Brass
4 Gemstone Mine
2 Sundering Titan
2 Gilded Lotus
1 Trinisphere
4 Chalice of the Void
1 Staff of Domination
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
2 Metalworker
1 Grim Monolith
1 Darksteel Ingot
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Vault
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
4 Mishra's Workshop

Sideboard:
2 Jester's Cap
1 Karn, Silver Golem
4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Sphere of Resistance
2 Swords to Plowshares
1 Duplicant
1 Triskelion

I'm not posting all this to bash him.  But to illustrate a far more important point: why do we disagree so much?  These questions are objectively resolvable - or at least we can resolve them far better than we are now.

I look at his deck and it makes me want to puke because it looks so unstable and riduclously bad.  He has lots of nonsensical one-ofs etc.

I honestly am NOT posting this to bash him - I think the point I'm making is more important:

He says my decks are bad, but I ALWAYS go out of my way to explain and justify them.  I spend tons and tons of words trying to present logical arguments to support them - not just rambings.  Or, I try to argue cost/benefit. 

No offense to Juggernaut Go, but I think the same thing when I see his decklists.  I just can't possibly see how they are objectively correct. 

Why are we all speaking at each other instead of to each other?  Why is there such a disensus when it comes to basic propositions in this format?  What's going on?  How can we improve this?

[TJ-Whoopy]

I'm so calling you first if I ever kill anyone.

[Metman]

I have been a long time reader of TMD, and although I haven't posted a whole lot I have done a lot a articulating my ideas and theory of the game amongst friends and other players in my meta.  I don't think there is a problem with the players currently.  As of lately we've had a few sets introduced to us that have some cards that are shaking things up in vintage.  There is more than just a couple cards out of each set that might be played in a couple decks.  There are handfulls of cards that are fundamentally changing our game.  Our kill conditions are different, our tutoring ability has gone from a couple good tutors to about a twice as many that could strongly been considered, I'm even seeing Charbelcher being played in Slaver decks.

I think this increase in cards and ideas is fantastic because it keeps us all on our toes, it is a double edged sword though.  We don't have enough time to test play everything that is running around in our heads.  I've noticed myself spending more time on Apprentice or MWS trying to put my ideas to work.  To be perfectly honest I can't seem to get a grasp on what are good ideas and what aren't, but I'm trying it all out.  I think that many others that have a great reputation on TMD and amongst the community may be going through the same dilemma...except they post first without really thinking about what they are posting to the public. 

What I see from Gilded Claw.dec is the same situation I'm in, a whole Burch of great ideas that may or may not be working together.  In this case they won't be working together.  My advise is to be patient and work your ideas out before you post ridiculous crap without a thought out plan of defending your arguments.  I also believe there is more reason to the quality, or lack there of, we've seen but that would probably start some flames so I won't get into that. 

[PacmanXSA]

Why are we all speaking at each other instead of to each other?  Why is there such a disensus when it comes to basic propositions in this format?  What's going on?  How can we improve this?

I took your initial post down to its fundamental question, and the simple answer is: "human nature".  People desire recognition.  People desire to be looked upon as superior.  While this is certainly not a phenomenon held strictly for vintage, it holds true in every format of every aspect of life.  While many TMDers around here are genuinely nice and accomodating, there are always those who have no interrest but to put down their fellow man in order to appear to others in a better light. 

The main problem with TMD is that new members are not given the opportunity to really mingle with the community unless they know some of them personally.  I frequent many forums, and this one is by far, the least community oriented; at least online.  Heck, I can't even post in most of the off-topic areas without writing an essay that's supposed to "help" grow the site and the format.  Most people that may have considerable potential will look at the requirements and scoff at them, never to return again. 

All in all, many desire to post; not just about Vintage, but about anything.  Many are not able to do so.  Without this aspect of "forum community", people will post where they can be heard, and attempt to justify themselves, especially when they don't know anyone; whether personally or online.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

@Metman: I don't believe that he's asking whether or not people are posting their ideas, rather why people are always dismissing the ideas of others or constantly arguing with each other. 

Pac

[Smmenen]

I am probably giving the wrong impression.

I am not very critical of experimental cards.  To be frank, I am very impressed with the decks I am now seeing in the Open forum.  For instance, that Recycle deck is a great germ of an idea.  We have a number of insane cards thrown at us: Life of hte Loam, Confident, etc - all of which I believe will see play in Vintage for some time. 

I don't think our problem is with individual cards being dismissed - I have a problem when I see a decklist like this:

2
3
4
4
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
and then
25 mana sources and
10 restricted cards

That's what I see when I see Juggernaut Go and Angry Pheldagrif decklists.  I see lots of 2ofs and 1 ofs like March of the Machines and random crap that makes absolutely no sense.   I don't think they have actually tested, with a sufficiently large sample size, the utility of those cards and they are just throwing these one ofs in and claiming their deck is good. 

I would like to see more in depth debate over not the merits of whether a card is good or not, but how it functions, what the costs of running it are, and how those measure up, specifically, against the benefits. 

AngryPheldagrif says I often play bad decks.  He asserts that, but I would like to get into a substantive debate on that question.  If my decks are bad, then he should explain why.  He should say how they have poor matchups in a certain percentage of the metagame.  I always go out of my way to justify my deck choice.  I put lots of attention into every card choice.  I don't know juggernautgo does the same when I see his Stax lists.  It seems like he just throws some cards in at the last minute. 

[Machinus]

I don't think our problem is with individual cards being dismissed - I have a problem when I see a decklist like this:

2
3
4
4
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
and then
25 mana sources and
10 restricted cards

That's what I see when I see Juggernaut Go and Angry Pheldagrif decklists.  I see lots of 2ofs and 1 ofs like March of the Machines and random crap that makes absolutely no sense.   I don't think they have actually tested, with a sufficiently large sample size, the utility of those cards and they are just throwing these one ofs in and claiming their deck is good.

Those are the instincts of a good deckbuilder. I think most good players recognize that decks like that aren't good, regardless of their power level. The only exceptions are for decks like Long or Gifts, with ways of easily getting specific cards out of the deck as part of the central game plan. Consequently, those decks are much harder to analyze and play.

It's just a basic principle of magic to get used to the rule of four. Restricted cards spoil Vintage players and confuse them about this, but in the end, consistent decks win tournaments.

[Metman]

I think you are right Pacman.  Your comment leads partially into what I was thinking.  I think that there is pressure to post on this forum by people that have new ideas.  TMD is really should be a place to get feedback but it has turned into a pissing match.  Although it hasn't changed people's nerve to put something in print it has caused people to put down something and those somethings are their jumbled up ideas.

[Smmenen]

Again, it's not the ideas I'm criticizing.

I have never been one to bash other peoples ideas because I think individual cards are far more viable than people are often willing to give credit for (Lion's Eye Diamond, case in point). 

I think the problem is often presentation.  People don't really talk about the merits of the cards in substantive terms beyond a briefest sketch.  I think that we can't even begin to evaluate a card unless we know precisely how it functions and what the opportunity cost of that slot is. 

Case in point: The discussion of Goblin Welder in the Stax thread. 

[sean1i0]

Well, first of all, I think it's because the ability to be able to do what you're proposing, Steve, takes a lot of insight into magic that many people just frankly don't have.  (This sounds like I'm saying we shouldn't push for everyone to post in the fashion you're talking about; I'm actually not saying that.)

The second thing is that it takes a lot serious testing and theorizing about the card choices in question.  For example, I have some thoughts on Welders in Stax, and I have some testing, but that, the number of Welders present in 5c Stax so as to optimize it, isn't something that I've been able to really get to test to my liking yet.  Because of that, I haven't commented on it.  Truly, I don't intend to until I get to test all the various combinations to my satisfaction.  What it seems that people tend to do instead of that most of the time is to post their current opinion of a topic.  That can be good, too and deserves its own time and place.  I did that when the topic of Sensei's Diving Top came up; I gave my at-the-time opinion, because if we don't post at all until all testing is concluded, then these boards, and the ideas that spring from them, would move at about the pace of a snail.

Thirdly, and lastly, it's something that needs to be pushed for when it is needed; doing that will help teach us all how to communicate our ideas and how to understand magic theory better.

[Smmenen]

Incidentally, where is your Top post?

I guess I'm wondering though: do we have fundamental disagreements on basic ideas in Vintage that would have been foreign last year?  If so, how do we get around that?

[Komatteru]

Everyone is really attached to their own ideas.  We all want to prove each other wrong most of the time.

[sean1i0]

The top post is somewhere in the top half of page 2 in the 5c Stax thread.  It really is just me making a "drive-by" statement I thought needed to be said about top in Stax.  While I still think that what I said is basically true depending on a particular build of Stax, I have definitely seen some merit to top in stax since then due to testing.  (Note that before testing tops in the deck, I had gone down to only using Ancestral as draw in the deck.)

Anyway, back on topic, I know that my fundamental understanding hasn't changed in the past year.  My understanding has grown quite a bit in this last year, but I can't say that all of a sudden I'm looking at a "whole new" vintage.  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people do feel that way, because of all the changes that vintage has gone through, but I still don't think that's the root of this condition that you've noticed.  People have been making decks with tons of unrestricted 1-ofs for years now and I think that it's mainly those people who are continuing the trend today.  I think what happens is that the people who do this come to know their deck well enough so that they can make it win through its inconsistencies; they come to see the random 1-ofs as being "random bursts of power" rather than an incosistent deck.  As for AngryPhelddagrif, he seems to have a tendency to declare a lot of decks that most people consider as proven archetypes to be "dead" or bad.

[forests failed you]

Vintage is a format that is fundamentally different than any other format in Magic.  It revloves around artifacts that cost zero and make mana.  It actually takes a lot of getting used to for new players to understand how this format functions.  

It takes people a lot of time to realize that answering or playing the insanely powerful and specialized threats/answers in Vintage, is actually much less important than how you manage, build, and cultivate your mana.  Games are won and lost based upon whether or not one's deck can make enough mana to execute a specific gameplan.  Steve, because he has been playing the format long enough to realize this, builds decks that operate in accordance with a specific mana curve and plan of attack, and tend to be more refined, consistent, and focused toward achieving their goals.  On the other hand, there has been a very large influx of new players to the format lately who do not quite understand how and why this format works the way it does.  Rather, they tend to be dazzled by the fact that their deck can make six mana on the first turn, rather than understand what the consequence of making six mana on the first turn is.  

Steve, the reason that there is so much tension between older players and newer players is that newer players don't understand all the mechanics of Vintage yet.  The reason they cannot articulate why they make the choices they do is that they themselves don't necessarily know.

For instance, when somebody shows up at an event with a deck containing four Mishra's Workshop and four Force of Will.  That person knows both are among the best four ofs in the format, but doesn't understand why they probably don't belong in a deck together.  In my opinion this is the problem with TMD and Vintage in general at the moment.  There are two distinct groups of players, new and old, with different understandings of how the format works clashing over different sets of ideas.

The problem is that the cards are so broken in Vintage that even though I consider myself to be a very competent Vintage player, I can actually sit down and get my ass kicked by any random scrub in any random round if he draws the nuts.  A lot of the decks I am seeing from newer players are just trying to do really nutty things as fast as possible; and sometimes it works.  In many ways I feel this lulls newer players into a false sense of understanding about how this format actually works, because they can win tournaments with awful/inconsistent decks just because they get lucky or play against other awful/inconsistent decks.  In fact, why should newer players alter their decklist that they made and have pride in if they are winning with them, just because we older players think they are awful?

Anyways, over time most player's understanding of how the format changes and develops over time.  It is only after a player has undergone these thought processes that they can really articulate and correctly identify why they have chosen the cards for their deck, and know for certain that they have actually chosen the correct combination of cards for a specific tournament.

And as for Angry, he recently declared Control Slaver as a dead deck in the SCG forums;  hopefully he learns how to play magical cards some day.

[Komatteru]

Vintage is a format that is fundamentally different than any other format in Magic.  It revloves around artifacts that cost zero and make mana.  It actually takes a lot of getting used to for new players to understand how this format functions. 

It takes people a lot of time to realize that answering or playing the insanely powerful and specialized threats/answers in Vintage, is actually much less important than how you manage, build, and cultivate your mana.  Games are won and lost based upon whether or not one's deck can make enough mana to execute a specific gameplan.  Steve, because he has been playing the format long enough to realize this, builds decks that operate in accordance with a specific mana curve and plan of attack, and tend to be more refined, consistent, and focused toward achieving their goals.  On the other hand, there has been a very large influx of new players to the format lately who do not quite understand how and why this format works the way it does.  Rather, they tend to be dazzled by the fact that their deck can make six mana on the first turn, rather than understand what the consequence of making six mana on the first turn is. 

Vintage is still Magic.  Magic games are often by the player who has more mana and/or the player that manages his mana more efficiently.  The importance of mana is just as pronounced in every format.  It's just that Vintage decks have a lot more mana faster.

[nataz]

I think we have gotten too many good cards in too short of a time. Our format is kraunked, because there is so much goodness that the cream hasn't had time to rise to the top, *and* possibly more debilitating to a coherent format, everytime something good does surface, everything else must change to accommodate that.

Look at what we have right now.

Stax
-Uba-Stax
-5Color Stax
Combo
-GrimLong
-Belcher
CS
-normal
-burning
Gifts.dec
-w/flame vault
-w/ DSC
-w/Belcher
-w/Oath
Oath.dec
-Chalice
-non-chalice
Dragon
-5 color
-UBG
Aggr0z
-FCG
Fish[/b
]-vial
-null Rod
-UB
-UW

Thats just what is popular right now, 8 major categories, with a combined 19 distinct sub-categories. Thats ridiculous. Even more amazing, RAV and Portal hasn't even been fully assimilated yet, I suspect that the dredge mech. has some serious potential, not to mention the full force of the portal tutors may not have been realized yet. this could spawn still more, ugh.

Thats not awesome, that's a pain in the ass. Everything up there is a "good" deck. I wouldn't laugh at any competant player piloting any of these in a tournament. But they are not all equal, there are better decks, and to take a posner-esq point of view, there very well may be a *best* deck for a particular time, community, and place, we just have to find it.

Today, I spent over an hour (go go invert zoo) thinking about new deck ideas, and fleshing them out on legal pads. I literaly have 4 entire legal pads full of "good", but "not good enough" ideas for decks, just from this year (go go college education!). I'm not exactly an old guard, but I've been around long enough to know that this would have never been possible even 12 months ago. Now, everytime I go online I see something new, and pretty amazing  (e.g., dark confidant, Dredge, TopOath, Hybrids), and I want to build something around it.

Why are we fragmented now? It's not because there is a new/old divide, its not because some people just don't get it, but because it is so easy to follow your own path and still have good (if not excellent) results. It has never been easier to say, "look at me, my idea roxorz", and actualy (even if by dumb luck) be correct.

 

P.S.
oh, and BTW, I like angry. Often times he is the only thing that makes SCG forums readable, its a shame he was banned from TMD. and FFY, I hate to break it to you, but your burning slaver list, is about half-a-heartbeat away from making a transition from "look at me, Ima different slaver list" => Look at me, I am a sub-optimal gifts list.

[Smmenen]

Our format is kraunked,

It has never been easier to say, "look at me, my idea roxorz", and actualy (even if by dumb luck) be correct.

Hilarious becuase true.  Well put.  Thanks for the thoughtful post. 

[Tin_Mox5831]

Lots of good points, guys. It's like JD said earlier, it's part of the human psyche to desire rewards and recognition for our deeds and ideas. That's basically the entire foundation of behavioral psychology. Unfortunately, it's also human nature to dismiss most conflicting ideas we encounter in life. In my mind, the greatest evidence of a wise man/woman is when they can admit when they're wrong. On that note, if there is anyone either here or on SCG that feels that I have slighted them unfairly, I apologize. I think that most of our precious Vintage sanctuaries (i.e. SCG and TMD) are dissolving into flaming forums. That's unfortunate. We have done an amazing job in the past of sharing information, and we need to resume that. It's pretty obvious from the time I've spent playing this format that Vintage players in general are some of the most insightful and respectful folks you could ever hope to meet in gaming. Let's continue to uphold that obligation.

Later,
Dave

[forests failed you]

P.S.
oh, and BTW, I like angry. Often times he is the only thing that makes SCG forums readable, its a shame he was banned from TMD. and FFY, I hate to break it to you, but your burning slaver list, is about half-a-heartbeat away from making a transition from "look at me, Ima different slaver list" => Look at me, I am a sub-optimal gifts list.

Hey random person I've never heard of in my life, thanks for the flame you fucking jerk.

I don't care if you like Angry or not.  My point is that if a player has the audacity to declare a deck like Slaver a "dead archetype," there is clearly something wrong with that player's thought process.  Am I just the luckiest player ever to split a Mox Jet in a 40 person field playing a "dead archetype," or is it possible that Angry is actually just wrong and doesn't know what he is talking about?

BTW if you think Burning Slavery is a bad deck feel free to explain why in the actual forum where it is being discussed, rather than just making random unsupported ascertians in a completely unrelated forum for no apparent reason other than to start a flame war.  I can see very clearly why you 'like' Angry so much.


Verbal warning. Next time, don't escalate a flame war like this--he wasn't insulting you, just your deck. Flaming him is unacceptable.
-Jacob

[Juggernaut GO]

No matter what you play in magic, you play the right mana base, and the other 33 cards don't mean shiiiiiiiiiit.  I play crap because I know it doesn't matter what's in my deck and I know I can still win the majority of my matches.  I like to change my deck a little bit every time I play in a tournament, I don't enjoy playing the same boring crap day after day.  I read about most players and how they play their pet decks every time, oath, control slaver and uba stax.  I just can't imagine how boring it must be day in and day out to play the same old shit.  Sure you perform well sometimes, but what does that really say about you as a player,  are you really as good as you think you are because you play the same deck always?

The shock value of seeing the look on peoples faces when they lose to a shitty card is worth more to me then making a top 8.  And most of the time I make top8 anyway.  So you all can call me un-refined, or retarded, but I play the game on my own terms, and not according to anything written on an internet forum.

I don't understand why a year ago everyone was calling out how stale and boring the metagame is, when now you can go to a tournament and see 30 different decks being played.  What is wrong with this?  What is wrong with some variety?

[Pave]

Smmenen, what precisely is the divide that you question?  Is it that between a decklist full of 4-ofs and a decklist full of 2 and 3-ofs?  Or is it more broadly that between a deck whose individual slots are each theoretically justified and, on the other hand, a deck whose slots are not subjected to the same kind of rigour?  Either way it may be a case of theory versus practice.  One can build a deck from first principles, taking a highly theoretical approach, or one can, often at great length, simply adapt whatever works.  Justification for some is best theoretical, for others experiential.  ('This card wrecked the other day!')  But the experiential approach, if not married with the more theoretical, you may (I think rightly) feel, tends to leave one at the merely tactical level.  One focuses ever more closely on specific card interactions, potentially missing the bigger picture.  A less theoretical approach can also mask, or find itself struggling to correct, what is finally a fundamental inconsistency or weakness in a deck.

[dexter]

"Why are we all speaking at each other instead of to each other?"

Well, jealousy of others success, bad feelings in the past, people dont know how to listen to other peoples arguments and just assumes that people are wrong and they themselves are have made the correct judgment about card / deck X.

Another reason might be this team spirit that I have started to notice from time to time with the american vintage teams. It seems like everytime team X goes public with some deck the ones who starts arguing against the deck its members of team Y, Z and so on. Why this is I dont know. But I guess its the same in every sport were people and teames compete trashtalking is a part of the game.

[dicemanx]

In my opinion, people don't see the value of "objectively inferior lists" when said lists often have tremendous surprise value or offer a deck flexibility or disruption options that end up working well in a particular event. It is too easy to disseminate a deck afterwards and point out its flaws/question the card choices. There have been numerous examples of decks that are or were deemed inferior (for example, decks like Doomsday, CA, Landstill, Shock Wave's Crucicontrol deck with *gasp* Shops and FoWs, various Stax/Shop aggro piles that JuggernautGO and Angrypheldagrif seem to enjoy much success with, the Canadian Fish Variant OFM, or other various homebrew decks that pop out of nowhere and catch everyone by surprise such as ReAnimator's Wild Zombies; even that Burning Slaver looks like a pile). And yet, these decks have been very successful.

Perhaps its not so much that we need to seek perfection in deck construction, or need to establish well "defined metas". It is always possible to criticize based on general considerations and theory, but there are subtleties that are rarely factored into the equation in most of the discussions on these boards. Folks tend to be excessively dismissive as well, which is probably another reason why discussions break down or why people are reluctant to post their ideas in the first place.

[nataz]

sigh,
turn that frown upside down FFY.
 
I'm not saying that its a bad deck, I even mentioned it in my list of "good" decks.
However, the way you seem to be tweaking your deck list, it does seem like it is pretty clearly morphing into a dedicated Gifts list. One of the things Angry says is that cs is dead, but he also says gifts is alive and well. Honestly, I'm not worried about playiing against CS at all in an event. Almost all the CS players have switched over to dedicated Gifts, take a look at the last waterbury for an example. You can call your decklist flying fairy dust for all that I care, but its not going to help support an argument FOR cs and Against gifts. 

I was just trying to put into context what angry said, and you were ignoring.
calm boy, calm. 

[Smmenen]

I actually think that his slaver deck is better than Gifts.  I wouldn't play a deck with more than 2 gifts right now in any event. 
I don't think SSB or Meandeck Gifts or the Gifts-Oath hybrids are the way to go right now. 

I didn't start this thread to just discuss one small issue - but a cluster of associated issues.

The subject line asks the primary question:

Is there a disensus on basic propositions in this format right now?

[TheUprisal]

Is there a disensus on basic propositions in this format right now?

The dissensus is much stronger than the consensus. And my version of "why" goes back to multiple things already mentioned.  The superiority comment, the need to show off, the feeling of inferiority if you are not innovative, etc.

With a metagame as arguably diverse as this currently is (with all 3 basics of combo, aggro, and control doing well, along with mixes of aggro-control, control-combo, even FCG's aggro-combo)  it opens the door for new theories, new ideas, and most importantly new secrets.

A tad offtopic, I refuse to post in SCG because that place is a fucking brothel of loud obnoxious assholes.  But I digress.

Leading off this diversity, this is also the first step to dissension (no pun intended).  Look at America today, its the same basic principles. 

To put it simply:
The more diverse an environment becomes, the less cohesive it's ideas become.

[Thug]

Just a small note about decks with lots of 1-of and 2-ofs.

If you run just a single brainstorm in your deck having two different cards in your deck is always better than one, since it gives you more diversity. It's not a matter of preferences, it's just logics.

If you run multiple brainstorms/impulses/tutors/card drawers you better have a darn good reason not to run 4 1-of's over 4 copies of the same cards.

But in type one there are some cards that just dont have anything close to a counterpart. You can't run 4 1-of's instead of 4 FoW, since theres nothing as good as FoW, same count for cards like Oath, Welder, Shop, Bazaar, Brainstorm etc.

But to fill those last 5-6 spots its actually very good to run 1-of's and it's something I always enjoy a lot. It also makes your deck much harder too master, but eventually it only improves your deck.

---

So in conclusion.

In most of todays type 1 deck, there's room for a couple of 1of's, and they will improve your deck. (example Gifts, Stax)
But in some other decks theres little reasons to run 1-of's, the only reason is that you can play mind games with your opponent. (Example, Mono-u, MUD) playing 1-ofs in these deck can often be a sign of poor testing or hesistation to make a choice.

People who get scared by all those one of are often more familiar with other formasts, which are much less about card drawing and much more about playing lots of good cards.

---

And once again, its a question of logics, so there should be no discussion about this
Just wanted to make that clear.

Koen

[combo_dude]

FFY said it best - when your opponent can get the nut draw and win, it doesn't matter if they're piloting a deck full of 2-ofs and 3-ofs. Some cards are just that powerful. While Angry probably hasn't tested enough, it doesn't mean he won't do well; you don't need an optimized deck to be able to say "my deck's good". It's an especially easy mistake to fall into when the rest of the deck has enough behind it to do pretty well (rather than very well, or the best he could possibly do), since success is probably the most powerful way to convince you that you couldn't be more successful with a few different cards.

We disagree because we desperately want, at the most basic level, to be right about our choices. We perpetuate our disagreements because 56 or so amazing cards and 4 OK cards is often enough to create the same effect as 60 amazing cards (thus concealing the 56/4 vs 60 discrepancy). Also, I think that whilst Angry's apparent grudge against Smmenen can come across as pretty childish at times, it's probably an extension of this idea to some extent: proving yourself right in an argument requires someone else to be wrong, and proving as big a name as Smmenen wrong would be a bigger achievement (and thereby a bigger ego boost) than proving me wrong, because Smmenen understands a hell of a lot more about Vintage than I do. That's the crown jewel to a man's pride - to beat the best. That's why we argue - if we agree with them, how can we say we've beaten them?

There's an SCG article from ages back about the idea of arguments (can't remember who wrote it, although it sounded like Richard Feynman or some such) - you need to justify things, not just make assertions. If we can justify something with logic, then there's no reason why we should have any disagreement. Because logic isn't opinion, logic is fact; once we establish something in fact, there's no grounds for disagreement (not that it can't be challenged, but at least we would have something that can be assumed true until proven false, rather than assumed false) and thus no reason for a lack of consensus.

Adam

[FiReiSFuN]

To address the topic first, I would have to say that it certainly depends... on what you think the basic propositions are.  When it comes to ideas relating to deckbuilding and metagaming, I would have to say that we are in a general consensus.  That is to say, we all (and I use the term "we" here loosely, as I am relatively new to Vintage, but please take it with a grain of salt) agree that no deck in Type 1 can be built in a vacuum.  Each deck needs to be tweaked for playstyle and meta considerations or they will likely not succeed.  When Smmenen writes a 15 page article, we understand that his deck looks like it does because he has put in hours of testing and preparation.  This fact proves itself: we know he tests because he writes articles about it.

And here is where I think the general dissolution of consensus begins.  I, for example, can open any thread on this page, look at any given list, and begin to post comments on how certain cards don't seem to fit.  However, I haven't actually put the deck together, haven't played it, and may not even have taken time to understand the subtleties of the deck.  Perhaps people argue against the deck's card choices based on solid playtesting experience with a different version of the deck, but I think that more likely they argue against them based on theoretical situations and not concrete evidence.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is what happens.  People chomp at the bit to get decklists from the latest event so that they might comment on this card choice or that card choice, having never picked up the archetype, or (perhaps) having not ever played a tournament with it or even against it.  This format is defined by theory and results.

Where does this emphasis on theory come from?  I'd point to a few sources.  The first source is undoubtedly those who write articles for SCG and the like.  Smmenen, you yourself have gone out of your way to legitimize the format and kudos on your articles and decks, but I do think that indirectly this has been the cause of this rampant theorizing.  People now read a Smmenen article and 1) think that they are reading the bible on the deck, and 2) feel that this now empowers them to criticize both this deck and others.  Variations on MeanDeck decks, for example, aren't always taken seriously, because "didn't you read Smmenen's article?  Merchant Scroll is OBVIOUSLY the right choice, don't use TFK you n00b!"-esque players would back it no matter what, assuming that a published article finalizes the deck and enshrines every card in it.  As you have admitted yourself Smmenen, MDGifts (and other builds) needs more work, but I fear that the only "real" work (that is, work that will be treated as legitimate) will come from Team MD and another article, simply because it is too difficult to break out of the theory mentality.  I'd also propose that the empashsis on theory comes from the nature of Vintage tournaments.  They don't happen altogether often.  The lull between tourneys, therefore, is spent conjecturing about the results of the latest one.  Sometimes this results in innovation, but I'd say more often the discussions break down into subjective arguments about card choices, that lack any real testing or play experience.

The nature of this format is competitiveness.  Articles about decks are written largely AFTER a large event, when the new deck that debuted at the tourney gets explained.  Netdecking then takes over and threads on the deck largely break down into card vs. card arguments that no one will admit they've lost.  The death of consensus starts here.

What is the best way to fix it?  Knowledge is power in my opinion.  We (as a community) need more players who have taken the time to learn about the WHOLE format, not simply about their pet favourite deck that "[insert either Andy, Steve, Brian, or Robert's name here] T8'd SCG with!".  This would naturally flow from the hosting of more Vintage events, but that is a different issue and one that misses the point of this thread's topic, I feel.

Disclaimer: In the next section I am not tooting my own horn.

When I first started playing Vintage seriously (which I'll admit hasn't been for very long, maybe since May of this year) I read the SCG articles, looked at tourney results, and latched onto a deck that I liked from an article.  I tested, and played the deck in a local tourney.  Having learned from actual play, I found a new deck to test.  The cycle continued.  I've since played about 5 or 6 events, all with different decks.  I don't think I can emphasize the impact this has had on my play style and skill level.

So, Smmenen, to answer your question in a (very, my apologies) roundabout way, consensus will be achieved through new players gaining experience with the WHOLE FORMAT and not simply their favourite deck.  I can't possibly suggest what the best catalyst for this will be, but in my best estimation, time and an open mind will bring a consensus on these propositions back to Vintage, and cause new "paragons" to emerge.

[Nehptis]

Everyone is really attached to their own ideas.  We all want to prove each other wrong most of the time.

Quoted because it is true.

Steve, my advice to you is to ignore the nonsensical posts on this and any other board.  I've attempted numerous times to engage board members in logical arguments with no avail.  I'm not sure if it is a lack of maturity or simply a lack of effort to support their criticisms of other peoples ideas and comments.  But, there are people willing to discuss the game and more importantly willing to do it in a logical, well thought out manner.  However, as a popular personality and successful player you are a lightening rod for illogical posts, comments, criticisms, etc.  My advice is to ignore the 20% of "noise" and focus your efforts on responding to the 80% who enjoy logical, well thought out discussions.

[Smmenen]

I am a little nervous and a little excited about this thread.  I used a lot of personal examples only because that is what triggered the thoughts that made me want to post the question.  I think there is a lot of solid introspection here, but I'm nervous because I don't want to this to be about me.   A number of the posts keep referring to my articles, or my ideas, or my theories.  I don't want this thread to be a Smmenen ego boost.  That said, keep up the introspection because I think most of the posts are well thought out and this is a discussion that needs to be had.   So, less talking about Smmenen and more talking about the format and the community.