Withholding Deck Lists

[netherspirit]

@ nether

If you want to have an argument about netdecks, perhaps competitive magic is not the place for you.

No offense but I find that rather offensive, you're basically saying you can't be original when it comes to magic and still be good, which is quite obviously a load of rubbish - if no one came up with new ideas we'd still be playing decks from years ago.

[jcb193]

I don't see why anyone thinks that there should be an obligation to share tech or information. 

1.) Yes it stagnates the metagame, yes it reduces innovation, and yes it makes everyone talk about the deck.

but how does that translate into an obligation to share information?  I personally think Top 8 lists should be posted, but I don't see why everyone should be forced to particiapate?

Under what theory should people be forced to share information?  Unless they are being sponsored, paid to innovate, or working for someone else, why should they have to?

Why do so many people in Magic always treat every issue from a socialist, communist perspective? [please don't derail this into an economic debate]  If someone works hard, develops innovation, they should be able to reap every competitive advantage until the rest of the market catches up.  If Coke wins the soda war, should they have to share their recipe upon winning?

[ErkBek]

They go home with a mox like pyromasta said. It's as plain and simple as that. If they want to actively hide their deck from the public afterwards in an attempt to overmilk it, shame on them.

What if you don't go home with a mox. Let's say you t8'd only to lose in the first round of the single elimination. Your reward is nothing.

False. The whole point of a team is to mimic a tournament setting, but in secret. Team testing prepares a deck for a tournament, in which afterwards, the deck is public and should be treated as such. Is there such a thing as a "small mox tournament"?

False. Teams cannot mimic tournaments. I'm not sure if you realize this, but teams don't get together for a weekly pow wow.

jcb193 is right on.

[Klep]

@ nether

If you want to have an argument about netdecks, perhaps competitive magic is not the place for you.

No offense but I find that rather offensive, you're basically saying you can't be original when it comes to magic and still be good, which is quite obviously a load of rubbish - if no one came up with new ideas we'd still be playing decks from years ago.

No, what he's saying is that netdecking is an intractable part of competetive Magic.  No one is saying you can't be original, just that you can't expect everyone to be original.

False. The whole point of a team is to mimic a tournament setting, but in secret. Team testing prepares a deck for a tournament, in which afterwards, the deck is public and should be treated as such. Is there such a thing as a "small mox tournament"?

False. Teams cannot mimic tournaments. I'm not sure if you realize this, but teams don't get together for a weekly pow wow.

I thought that was the whole point of a team: to test together.

[netherspirit]

I'm not saying that everyone will be original, but I still don't feel people should have to share their lists. If someone has a deck, no matter how great or feeble it may be, surely they have the right not to let other people know what's in it, not everyone likes to be so open with their decks.

[Lou]

I'm not saying that everyone will be original, but I still don't feel people should have to share their lists. If someone has a deck, no matter how great or feeble it may be, surely they have the right not to let other people know what's in it, not everyone likes to be so open with their decks.

What about at a santioned event when you are required to allow your top 8 opponent to see your list in a lot of events now?

[ErkBek]

False. The whole point of a team is to mimic a tournament setting, but in secret. Team testing prepares a deck for a tournament, in which afterwards, the deck is public and should be treated as such. Is there such a thing as a "small mox tournament"?

False. Teams cannot mimic tournaments. I'm not sure if you realize this, but teams don't get together for a weekly pow wow.

I thought that was the whole point of a team: to test together.

Our team hardly gets to test together. Mostly we just use private forums to communicate ideas, metagame predictions, and stupid funny stuff.

Fixed quote tags. -Matt

[netherspirit]

I'm not saying that everyone will be original, but I still don't feel people should have to share their lists. If someone has a deck, no matter how great or feeble it may be, surely they have the right not to let other people know what's in it, not everyone likes to be so open with their decks.

What about at a santioned event when you are required to allow your top 8 opponent to see your list in a lot of events now?

I don't see the point in it, I mean, yes you get information about their deck, which helps you, but they get the same. I think it makes magic less of a game of skill, because you can plan ahead more, you don't have to think on the spot so much.

[jcb193]

What about at a santioned event when you are required to allow your top 8 opponent to see your list in a lot of events now?

My guess is that that is being done more for the Marketing of competiive magic, than for game integrity.

I think this issue boils down real simply.

From an idealists perspective, sharing Top 8 lists is great and makes us all warm and fuzzy.

But logically, there is no reason that anyone would ever share a decklist other than prestige, vanity, or criticism.  No matter how you look at it, their competitive advantage decreases the second they publish the list mainstream.  

Whether hiding decklisty hurts the global metagame, the game in general, or whether it even works (SX) is irrelevent. 

[cssamerican]

The simple answer to all of this is:

It should be announced before the tournament begins wether deck lists will be posted as public information after the event. If they are posting the information for everyone to see and you want to keep your deck list under wraps then you have a choice, play something else or go home. If they are not posting deck list its a good place to get some real world testing for you super secret deck.

My personal opinion is that you should not post Top 8s and withhold decklists, either you post all the top8 or none of it. However, it really is up to the tournament organizer or the forum its being posted on as to what information goes public. So I am not getting why this as become such a hot button issue all of a sudden. Though it is nice to see Zherbus posting again

[Webster]

I don't see why anyone thinks that there should be an obligation to share tech or information. 

1.) Yes it stagnates the metagame, yes it reduces innovation, and yes it makes everyone talk about the deck.

but how does that translate into an obligation to share information?  I personally think Top 8 lists should be posted, but I don't see why everyone should be forced to particiapate?

The only person forcing someone to participate is themself by entering the tournament. If a TO posts lists, it's their choice. No one is exempt from their decision. Everyone in that tournament should be held to the same rules and standards. If someone doesn't want their list posted, then they should not participate in events that post lists until the one that they're saving their list for.

Under what theory should people be forced to share information?  Unless they are being sponsored, paid to innovate, or working for someone else, why should they have to?

Why do so many people in Magic always treat every issue from a socialist, communist perspective? [please don't derail this into an economic debate]  If someone works hard, develops innovation, they should be able to reap every competitive advantage until the rest of the market catches up.  If Coke wins the soda war, should they have to share their recipe upon winning?

The more information that is out there for the public, the better the format should be. Magic is a game and should be made as enjoyable and healthy as possible. Keeping innovation private once it's been displayed in a public setting serves no purpose for bettering the community. This isn't some soda war fueled by a market potential exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars, it's a small format in a game. Don't take it out of context.

They go home with a mox like pyromasta said. It's as plain and simple as that. If they want to actively hide their deck from the public afterwards in an attempt to overmilk it, shame on them.

What if you don't go home with a mox. Let's say you t8'd only to lose in the first round of the single elimination. Your reward is nothing.

If you're a good player with a good deck or one that's worth keeping secret, you should win. Sure you can have a bad matchup, mull to 5 multiple times, they get a nut draw, etc etc. Whatever. I'll humor you and concede those possibilities as outcomes. In the case where those happen, your deck will probably go unnoticed except possibly at the local level from people who saw the bad beat that you got in the top8 meaning you get to try again next time.

False. The whole point of a team is to mimic a tournament setting, but in secret. Team testing prepares a deck for a tournament, in which afterwards, the deck is public and should be treated as such. Is there such a thing as a "small mox tournament"?

False. Teams cannot mimic tournaments. I'm not sure if you realize this, but teams don't get together for a weekly pow wow.

The ideal team, in fact, is better than a tournament because it's comprised of all good players. Teams playtest. I don't know how often your team meets for testing, but serious ones do meet regularly; examples of this are far more visible for premier level tournaments.


Web

[Vegeta2711]

False. Teams cannot mimic tournaments. I'm not sure if you realize this, but teams don't get together for a weekly pow wow.

You're apparently the only one. I know our team has run mini tournaments and tested togheter for years and we're scattered all over the place.

[Moxlotus]

The ideal team, in fact, is better than a tournament because it's comprised of all good players. Teams playtest. I don't know how often your team meets for testing, but serious ones do meet regularly; examples of this are far more visible for premier level tournaments.


Web

Teams cannot mimic tournaments because a team cannot have the many decks that are possible to play against--especially in as many variations as they can come in.  You can test against a few, but you'll never test against every single deck that you might face.  Also you won't face different ideas, in deck construction and in play.  Look at the Gift starting hand or the Grim Long play situtation threads for examples of how different people feel about different hands and how they would play them.

If you're a good player with a good deck or one that's worth keeping secret, you should win. Sure you can have a bad matchup, mull to 5 multiple times, they get a nut draw, etc etc. Whatever. I'll humor you and concede those possibilities as outcomes. In the case where those happen, your deck will probably go unnoticed except possibly at the local level from people who saw the bad beat that you got in the top8 meaning you get to try again next time.
 

So you ignore top 8 decklists unless they win?

What about at a santioned event when you are required to allow your top 8 opponent to see your list in a lot of events now?

That is different.  This is to prevent players in the top 8 gaining an information advantage over other players in the same top 8 because of friends scouting.  Posting top 8 decklists has prevents no unfair advantage.

Is there such a thing as a "small mox tournament"?
 

There is a difference in giving a deck a test run at a 20 person Mox Pearl tournament than at a SCG event.

The only person forcing someone to participate is themself by entering the tournament. If a TO posts lists, it's their choice. No one is exempt from their decision. Everyone in that tournament should be held to the same rules and standards. If someone doesn't want their list posted, then they should not participate in events that post lists until the one that they're saving their list for.
 

This would be bad for the TO.  Giving people disincentives to play at your tournament?  I doubt many TOs would refuse to withold a decklist if someone asked.  Pissing off people who in the future you would like to receive $ from is a bad idea.

[Webster]

Teams cannot mimic tournaments because a team cannot have the many decks that are possible to play against--especially in as many variations as they can come in.  You can test against a few, but you'll never test against every single deck that you might face.  Also you won't face different ideas, in deck construction and in play.  Look at the Gift starting hand or the Grim Long play situtation threads for examples of how different people feel about different hands and how they would play them.

It's not that hard to make the majority of expected decks. Card limitiations you might say. Proxy much? Given that you have more than 1 person to play against, you'll be facing different play styles. Given enough time dedicated to testing, you'll be able to play against everything that you want to. Did I miss something?

So you ignore top 8 decklists unless they win?

Personally, no. However, I know a lot of people that do. You can't use my opinions and decisions to determine what other people think and do; if that were the case, this thread wouldn't have been started in the first place and we'd be at a BBQ in California watching an A's game.

Is there such a thing as a "small mox tournament"?

There is a difference in giving a deck a test run at a 20 person Mox Pearl tournament than at a SCG event.

I'm saying that 'test runs' can be done with whatever team a person is affiliated with or against themself. Wherever a person does there testing is their own decision, whether it be with a team on Friday's at Uncle Joey's, at a local power tournament, or traveling to play at a SCG event. Regardless of the size of the event that a deck is entered, the person and deck that they're using is open to whatever standards are set by the TO.

The only person forcing someone to participate is themself by entering the tournament. If a TO posts lists, it's their choice. No one is exempt from their decision. Everyone in that tournament should be held to the same rules and standards. If someone doesn't want their list posted, then they should not participate in events that post lists until the one that they're saving their list for.

This would be bad for the TO.  Giving people disincentives to play at your tournament?  I doubt many TOs would refuse to withold a decklist if someone asked.  Pissing off people who in the future you would like to receive $ from is a bad idea.

No, it really isn't a bad idea. I've been running/playing in tournaments for over 10 years now. Establishing rules is critical. I've seen very few people walk out of a tournament because they did not agree with a specific rule set down by the store holding the tournament. Every single person I've seen that has done that has come back.


Web

[dicemanx]

I like to withhold decklists if it suits me and the TO is willing. I don't buy for a second that withholding lists is detrimental to the game, and I would shrug off any suggestions that what I'm doing is "wrong". 

[nataz]

I like to withhold decklists if it suits me and the TO is willing. I don't buy for a second that withholding lists is detrimental to the game, and I would shrug off any suggestions that what I'm doing is "wrong". 

I don't equate selfish with wrong.

If you are allowed to withold a decklist, what is stopping me from witholding a list (besides of course a recent top 8, snark). If both me and you are allowed to withold our lists, why can't Mr. X do the same? Heck, why publish top 8 data at all, and keep all of our lists to ourselves. Then we can play against the same 15 people every day and revert back 4 years into tiny locally fragmented and inbred meta's

*poof* yay, we've turned into legacy. (Fucking ouch :< -Matt)

The problem I have with people witholding decklists is that they expect other people to provide theirs. Peter, how would you have ever tested your new Dragon list unless you had a gauntlet to test against? Where did you get that gauntlet from, personal notes/inspiration, or Top 8 data?

Why do you get to benefit from others posting lists, but others don't get to see your list? You get something at the expense of others, and you give nothing back, that is the definition of selfish.

[dicemanx]

If you are allowed to withold a decklist, what is stopping me from witholding a list

I'd actually encourage you to keep new and amazing ideas to yourself. Full disclosure is taking away some of the mystery and discovery in this format. It's actually quite exciting to go to events and not have that much of an idea what cool and amazing things you're bound to see, even if they have been played in previous high profile events. 

[warwizard87]

Truthfully when you give a deck list to the TO that becoumes thier property they can do what they want with it. IF the TO posts deck lists post ALL top 8, not just am few if you withhold 1 withhold all. After all thats just fair.

[LotusHead]

If you are allowed to withold a decklist, what is stopping me from witholding a list (besides of course a recent top 8, snark). If both me and you are allowed to withold our lists, why can't Mr. X do the same? Heck, why publish top 8 data at all, and keep all of our lists to ourselves. Then we can play against the same 15 people every day and revert back 4 years into tiny locally fragmented and inbred meta's
*poof* yay, we've turned into legacy.

Some people netdeck lists, and some people disect lists.  There is NO snowball effect happening here.  Only discussion.  if there were to begin to be even a hint of the merest possibility of an Information Freeze happening, peoplle will know.  As it is, very very few people ask that their list be withheld. (I gave a 1% max number).  It should be up to the TO to allow/dissallow such requests.

"Team Secrecy" and pwning Newbie Ideas is a bigger issue (and while Team Secrecy is still out there, ideas abound on TMD at the moment (yay!) and Newbie Ideas are now Vintage Improvement ideas, and discussed relatively calmly.

I say let the few that want their lists withheld (for a week or 2 or three.) have their wishes granted, at TO's ultimate discression.

[jcb193]

Heck, why publish top 8 data at all, and keep all of our lists to ourselves. Then we can play against the same 15 people every day and revert back 4 years into tiny locally fragmented and inbred meta's

Because most people will not be able to resist the "fame" that comes from developing a new list or technology. 

[Whatever Works]

Truthfully when you give a deck list to the TO that becoumes thier property they can do what they want with it. IF the TO posts deck lists post ALL top 8, not just am few if you withhold 1 withhold all. After all thats just fair.

Most people enjoy recognition, and in many cases WANT there lists posted. So an all or nothing option would be disliked heavily. However, in the end its up to the TO.

[VegasJake]

I think we can all agree that, simply from the standpoint of the tournament-playing T1 Magic Community (ignoring issues of individual rights), the following are true:

A)  The more diversity in decklists, the better
B)  The more (good) players, the better

More information available to the Magic community in the form of decklists and deck analysis would support point (A).  However, forcing people to divulge home-grown tech in the form of mandatory decklists, while immediately forcing any innovations "into the open" (thereby supporting (A)) would also probably discourage some players' incentive for innovation, namely competitive advantage (thereby detracting from (A)) and may also piss off some people or keep them away from the smaller tourneys, leading to decreased tournament attendance and undermining (B).

I see a couple of problems with the lines of reasoning presented here to support mandatory decklists:

1)  It seems something of a tacit assumption, among some in this thread at least, that if decklists are not published NO information will be available about the "secret" decks.  However, through the mere fact that they are played in a public tournament, those who played against them or spectated the match will be able to see at least some (and through time, all or almost all) of the cards and strategies the deck employs.  I.e., even without published decklists the deck will pretty quickly be analyzed and recreated, to a significant extent.  Now, this DOES promote format growth (point (A)) and it could be argued you would have to be completely lazy to ask people to hand their hard work in deck innovation to you on a silver platter when you could get (most of) it through a little leg-work and analysis.  I think Draven had a good analogy with the NFL football playbook.  Teams can see an opponent's plays and get a good idea of the playbook and analyze the team's strategy, so teams will get to see basically how their opponents' offense/defense is run.  But they don't get to see actual verbatim contents of the playbook.  I don't hear about NFL teams complaining that this is "stifling innovation" or such nonsense.

2)  It seems like people are basically taking one of two extreme positions on this thread:

i)  You should (almost) never be allowed to withhold your decklist.
ii)  You should (almost) always be allowed to withhold your decklist.

But it's the fallacy of the excluded middle to think that these are the only options.  There is a middle ground which is probably correct.  You have to balance competing forces which would work to stifle innovation and diversity in the metagame.  On the one hand:  If no decklist innovations become public knowledge, the metagame will stifle.  On the other hand, if people are forced to reveal too much, too soon, the incentive to innovate will be reduced and therefore less will occur.  I think a good middle ground would quite possibly be that decklist publication isn't mandatory at small events but is at large ones (Gencom, Starcity, etc.).

But I really feel that, since as stated above decklist information will naturally be revealed through playing against the "secret" decks, we will already have grist for format-changing innovation without forced decklist publication.

-VJ

[jcb193]

I think the other thing people are failing to forget is that by having "to guess" the contents of someone's deck might actually create more innovation because you might have to try combinations or ratios that a posted decklist would already consider ideal.  IE, tesing that 3rd STP, because you don't know if he ran 2 , 3 or 4.  Versus seeing a decklist and assuming it is maximized.

Most players when they make a major Top 8 are pleased.  Most players will want to share their decklist (for prestige or for validity of their skill/tech).  I think players should have the right to trade visibility and prestige for intellectual propreitary.  Most will not choose to excercise that right.

Getting 7 out of 8 decklists should be enough. 

[Norm4eva]

Getting 7 out of 8 decklists should be enough.

Not to single you out, but this is an interesting idea.  What happens when you start getting reports with like, 3 decklists?  It won't happen all the time, one can hope not anyway, but can you submit to the notion that there will be tourneys where there's not enough data to extrapolate anything meaningful?
It's funny, for a second I thought that communication and the share of information was what got Eternal formats to where they are today.  It was a casual player's haven for years, then everyone got mobilized, started talking to each other, got WotC to pay attention.  Lists were shared, people stopped playing pirate.dec featuring Deep Spawn tech and 'moved out of the garage' as it were.  Now it's like, all that stuff is too hippy for the community, because if everyone's sharing ideas no one has any secrets and the 'real players' who put in the 'real work' are just going to get slighted and ripped off the minute the list hits the Net.  I used to be pissed because I don't live in a place where Vintage is a big deal (and I don't have the money for Type 2), but when I see this kind of stuff it makes me glad to be degrees of separation away.  It's just like the proxy thing all over again.  You want a larger playing field but no noobs.  You want new tech, as long as it's not everyone playing YOUR new tech.  You'd like fresh faces and fresh ideas, but no proxies b/c you paid for/earned yours, and no sharing ideas so the innovation remains small-scaled and localized.  Whoever used the word 'inbred' is right on track.  Basically Vintage has wanted to have its cake and eat it for the last like 4 years.
You don't know it yet, but you need that 8th decklist.  It's roughly akin to getting rid of the penny; soon people will want to be freed of the nickel.  You take away the need for that decklist, what's the next step?  I don't want to present this huge snowball argument or whatever, but seriously; it's this share-and-share-alike stuff that let Type 1 evolve to where it's at.  If there were a list of Commandments for Vintage to follow, this would be in the top 5.  You used to want to be taken seriously, as a society of players; now you just want your team to win.  If you're standing on the shoulders of giants, why would you kick them in the ear?

[Matt]

A player has every right to keep their information secret...until they use it in a public tournament. From that point on, keeping your list secret is just being an ass, especially if you T8 (no one cares what 72nd place was running).

[The Atog Lord]

Full disclosure cannot but lead to the continued health and growth of the format. Were decklists always kept cloistered, the metagame as we know it would not have come about; rather,the stagnation that remained so long would still be locked in place today. The recent years have seen an amazing series of innovations, and I doubt it would be possible without sharing of lists. I recall a time, not so long ago, when decks were stagnant and there was no type one scene. We have emerged from that dark time to see a flourishing of type one; we should not now cast aside what has brought us this far. I do not want to revert to those days when type one was nothing more than something played with friends just for fun; and I doubt the community does either.

[Demonic Attorney]

If someone is using a local venue's small Mox tournament to give their new deck idea an initial test run, I see no problem with expecting them to provide the community with their list.  The deckbuilder is relying on the community to help them with testing the deck, and is benefitting from the opportunity to learn about their deck's competitive potential in a tournament setting.  It seems only fair that the community be entitled to the reciprocal benefit of learning about an innovative concept in the Vintage tournament scene, since their participation in the tournament made the initial test run possible in the first place.

[M.Solymossy]

In today's vintage world, there are SO many large scale events.  ICBM for example had people at ALL THREE large events.   GWS had a large number in Richmond, and had one in Charlotte.   I knew about SS for months before Rochester, basically because (A) TK is one of my best friends, and (B) because I was on ICBM.  Adrienne even ran his deck to a 3rd place finish at one of the local Milwaukee Events.  What would he have gained by posting his list for everyone to see?   I personally see NOTHING wrong with teams like ICBM, Meandeck, Reflection, or GWS or anyone else for that matter, playing their successful list in local events, winning tons, and keeping their decklist private.  IF you recall January-March, anyone reading tournament forums would recall the "GWS Secret Deck" that myself, Eric Becker, and several others were running, leading up to Richmond.  Eric won an event with it, Rhyno won an  event with it, and I top8ed every tournament I played with the deck.  If the list was revealed before Star City, what would the point have been for GWS and ICBM to go, since all of GWS minus one person Played it, and 2 of 5 ICBMers (at the time) played it.  I do seem to recall that, uh.... 3 pieces of power were won in Virginia with the deck.  If people saw it coming, they would have realized that Intuition was really the set-up spell.  I loved when people would counter my intuitions, for fear of what I could get.   

[The_spooky_kid]

I see deckliss being withheld as a positive thing.  Like 13Nova said if a new archtype is revealed before a bigger tournament it would lose its element of surprise.  Like IT and The SS, this give both decks huge advantages all day at the starcitygames they were released at. Now if Eric Becker or Adrian Sullivan did release those decks to the public I highly doubt they would have been as successful as they were due to people being ready for them.

[Matt]

Adrienne even ran his deck to a 3rd place finish at one of the local Milwaukee Events.  What would he have gained by posting his list for everyone to see?

If you merely want to keep discussion quiet by not actively showing off your list, that's one thing. If no one asks for a list, you're under no obligation to give it out, but if the TO would like to collect T8 lists, it's incredibly rude to say "no dice chump!"