[Discussion] hate decks vs. Top Tier

[Zherbus]

Maybe I'm defining hate differently.

Certainly. There's a line to be crossed. There's clever metagaming and solid sideboarding, and then there's hate. By your definition, a combo deck is a hate deck because it beats creatures attacking. It might be the same art/pornographic arguement (hard to define, but you know it when you see it), but there's gotta be a line drawn somewhere. For the sake of hauntedechos topic, I think a better term is 'metagame' deck. It would streamline the discussion without tangents such as:

In my meta, Doomsday is a hate deck.

My shop decks hate on blue decks.  But that doesn't mean I play hate decks.  I'm just addicted to shops, and Gush is what it's all about in the non-Shop decklists.  Suck on Chalice for 1, Thorn, go, blue decks.

Hate is a strong word, and I don't mean in terms of the opposite of love. If someone calls my deck a 'hate' deck, there really ought to be some founding that I'm running awful cards in some reasonably common matchups. Like maindeck REB or Leyline of the Void (Ichorid doesn't count, it's there for it's own purposes).

[hauntedechos]

For the sake of consistency, could you drop a clear definition of "hate deck" and what is clearly evident within said deck type?  I'm not trying to be smart, it's an honest request as I think it would greatly keep the conversations on point and defined.

Haunted.

[Zherbus]

My definition of a hate deck is a deck that runs many cards that are useless or mostly useless to somewhat common decks in order to absolutely do a number on a (likely more common) deck or group of decks. Basically, it's maindecking sideboard cards. Common sideboard cards are stuff like Leyline of the Void, Red Elemental Blast, Energy Flux, etc. If one were to stock their deck full of, say, Leyline of the Void and Extirpate, they would certainly give Flash and Ichorid a hell of a time on game 1. However, many decks would have varying degrees of indifference.

Card example that are more obvious

Maindecking Burnout or Boil will give a pre-sb edge against blue-based strategies, but will be dead draws against a good portion of the metagame (Workshop Aggro, Ichorid, MUD, Dawn of the Dead).

Card example that could walk the blurry line, they could be hate or they could be clever metagaming.

Maindecking Null Rod or Kataki will give an extreme edge against some decks, while being more harmful to yourself in others.

Card that aren't hate at all.

Mana Drain, Force of Will, Tendrils of Agony, Flash, Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual, Sphere of Resistance, Tarmogoyf, Dark Confidant, Doomsday...

[hauntedechos]

Ok, see I basicly had the same general ideal, however the difference I had was that your maindeck should include cards that are decent across the field, when considering how you were going to hinder the field.  IE maindecking Null Rods and Kataki in Fish when considering all vintage decks runs some sort of artifact accelerants.  It's not a great idea when you look at the mirror or even TMWA, however amongst the upper tier it is a sound method of hatered.

The confusion might come about because the only real common "hate based" decks that I can summon are TMWA and Fish in it's varying incarnations.  When I look at the same decks in the light that you've provided, then there does seem to be a blurry line of meta deck and "hate deck".  For instance I had never played "hate" cards that were narrow, maindeck - your illustration of E.Flux or Leyline of the void - to up the chances of a set of matches.

In light of the offerings of Zherbus, I think this has a significant effect on the topic at hand.  At the same time, it does make it harder to distinguish hate from metagaming.  It does a great service to clarify the offerings of several posters on this thread as well.  I'm going to ponder the differences and apply them to the subject at hand to see what effects it has, if any, on the initial thoughts I had when I offered this thread up.

Thanks Zher.

Haunted.

[AmbivalentDuck]

My definition of a hate deck is a deck that runs many cards that are useless or mostly useless to somewhat common decks in order to absolutely do a number on a (likely more common) deck or group of decks.

Doomsday (the card) pretty much fits the bill for that definition.  It kicks the crap out of pretty much any deck without blue and is only marginally useful again almost anything with blue.

Before I fight any more uphill battles, I also want to point out that a lot of traditional 'control' was based around tutoring for maindeck cards that would go into modern sideboards.  Maher's extended Oath deck ran these main: Phyrexian Furnace, Aura of Silence, Ivory Mask, Trade Routes.  Talk about narrow hate, especially in his meta.  If I can make the case that Maher Oath was a hate deck (and it was), I'm very close to calling anything that tutors for silver bullets a hate deck.  If you don't believe that Maher Oath is a hate deck, I'm more than willing to help you understand extended circa 2001 via MWS.  The deck tutors up a single card selected to ruin your deck (and probably only your deck  in that meta), and plays it with Counterspell/FoW backup.  The fact that we have better, less narrow silver bullets (Extirpate is almost as good on Gush and Protean Hulk as it is on Narcomoeba and Squee) doesn't change their nature and doesn't change the hate-orientation of a deck.


How narrow does hate have to be?
Ie.  U, Sorcery, Search target opponent's library for a card named Flash and remove it from the game.  If you do, you win.

100% narrow, 100% game breaking against that deck: I'm almost certain it fits your definition.  Now, change that to read Force of Will instead of Flash.  I still think it's hate, even though it hits a wide swath of the meta.  Change it again to read nonbasic land and it's no longer hate and instead a format defining win condition.

On your list, I think Goyf and Sphere are reasonable examples of hate.  Nobody plays Goyf because of the explosive wins he enables, or because he's better than the format's best beaters (Dryad, Tinker, Oath).  They play him because he dominates early attacks phases without costing card advantage or eating up multiple slots.  Unlike somewhat conditional Tinker and Oath, which are huge and can tear up the opponent's side of the board, Goyf is less susceptible to various answers.  Sure he can attack for the win, but so can Magus of the Moon; neither will be attacking for the kill on turn 4 very often.  He's hate against slow decks.

Sphere fundamentally makes the assumption that it's the *quantity* of your opponent's spells that will kill you.  That assumption breaks down against any deck whose individual spell quality is greater than yours.  Also, some decks *did* run it as a sideboard card before the printing of Thorn.

[hauntedechos]

Well we've had a fairly busy day on this thread, which I think is good.  I just want to take a moment to state, that I certainly do not want any single person to feel stifled in thier contributions to this discussion.  it is open to all and I would like to hear everyones thoughts on the matters.  Right now there is a great discussion going on as to what attributes are required to garner the "hate deck" title.  I encourage all to read, ponder and offer thier thoughts.

@Duck:  I want to be clear when I say that I am not disputing your opinions or point of view, I am simply debating with you on the grounds of MY understanding as you are within yours.  There is an ultimate goal for me and that is to fully understand the ideals behind the creation of a "hate deck".  Further to that,  when it is a solid choice to stitch one together and what to realise as it's pilot.

Now you are stateing that the card Doomsday itself is a "hate card" in that it is nigh unstoppable in a deck that lacks  methods to hinder it from resolving.  If I understand enough of the deck, Doomsday is used to create a game winning situation and thusly is used to advance to the state of winning.  This is backwards from my understanding of "hate": where "hate" is a tool employed to hinder/cripple the deck is is targeted toward, while not having ties to, or being the catalyst outright for the ensuing win.

Again, the selection of the Doomsday deck, with consideration of a meta lacking significant  numbers, would fall under my classification of a metagame deck, such as TSOath and Oath in general, is right now.  It's just my opinion, I'm not saying that I am right, it's just how I classify things based on my understandings.  In the case of the Maher Oath list, I'm hesitant to say anything with conviction on the matter.  However, it does seem to have qualities of Keeper and that deck does not fall under my classification either.  Keeper and The Deck, are pure control decks that employ the use of hate cards to answer threats.  The idea there is to have access to an answer to every threat possible via tutors and decent draw to keep card advantage...in short there is a strategy beyond just packing hate cards aimed towards a number of decks, while willingly not addressing others.

Again Duck, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm only debating with you untill I reach a point where I feel satisfied with the points of view.  In time, you could totally change my mind on the matter, who knows. =)

@ Zherbus: The more I refine my understanding of the basis for "hate decks", the more inclined I am to say that even Fish may not be a "hate deck", as it strives to cover the current meta with disruption that is broad enough, yet effective enough to cover its entire current meta.  In fact the more I understand "hate decks" the more I find them to be inline with "rogue decks", which are not to be confused with decks that are piles and lack any consideration or understanding of Vintage as a whole or at least the meta.

@the community:  Certainly this discussion has taken a side route that I had not expected, yet is greatly enjoyed by me.  With an understanding of the hate deck definition, I find a different light in which to build by that might be very enjoyable to play.  Think about an opponent who happens to be playing a deck that your intended hate hits.  Not only is the hate annoying and frustrating to play against because of it's obvious narrow uses, but the deck itself seems like a complete pile.  At least with Fish, there is a general acceptance of the ideal (again Fish is much bigger than an archtype).

Haunted.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Sorry, I'm not trying to derail your thread. 

@the whole Doomsday as hate-card subject: that was purely in reference to Zherbus's definition.  Doomsday has nothing to do with interactivity, which I think is a necessary precondition for hate.

Keeper and The Deck, are pure control decks that employ the use of hate cards to answer threats.

Honestly, I think that makes them hate decks.  Compare them to Slaver which is the best example of non-hate control that I can think of.  Slaver used ultra-general threats (controlling your turns and an 11/11 trampler) and ultra-general answers (Duress, FoW, Drain, bounce) to control the game.  Keeper and The Deck relied on ultra-specific silver bullets to interact with opposing decks: 4 Drains and 4 FoW are *not* enough to control something like Sligh.  Their strategy required finding and resolving a silver bullet. That screams hate deck to me.  That's why I'm using Maher Oath as my primary example: it did nothing but find and resolve silver bullets and that was its ENTIRE strategy.  Morphling kills are not fast and they're incredibly mana consuming.  Your opponent has to be almost dead in the water before you even think about trying to kill them.

I think Zherbus's definition of hate deck requires that a deck run objectively bad cards that happen to roll a few matchups.  Other than that, I agree with your characterization of his stance.

Also, I see absolutely *no reason* why a hate deck can't kill with Tendrils?

[Whamme]

'Hate deck' is a perjorative term. It's a criticism, an insult. 'Hating on' something is different from 'metagaming against' something. Hating implies irrationality, that you're trying to beat specific players/decks for a reason other than 'this gives me the best chance of winning'.



The line between prison, control, and hate is often blurred. All of them are disruption, and always, the objective is to delay your opponent until you can kill them.
'Speedbump Disruption': Deck runs enough disruption to buy a turn or two, then wins. (Duresses, Thoughtseizes, FoW)
'Control': Deck runs enough disruption to buy a turn or two, then gains incremental advantage and buys more turns (Drains + FoW + something else good).
'Prison': Deck runs almost nothing BUT disruption.


There's a continuum. The thing is, bits and pieces can be mixed and matched - Blue decks with chalices and FoW? Magus of the Moon paired with discard.

The issue is coherency. It's HARD to keep buying turns, because there are no wrong threats, only wrong answers. This is why Prison is typically mana denial. (Chalice/Meddling Mage type effects are similar - the key is to focus on giving them dead draws).


Mixing mana denial in with counters CAN pay off. But there are a lot of ways the two sets of disruption can end up both applying the same constraints, overlapping rather than synergizing. The key is that cumulative disruption is overall stronger. (Also, being able to capitalize on an advantageous position counts... 'I guess I keep denying you mana' < 'I kill you with tendrils') Incoherent disruption CAN be better (oops, I drew null rod against your hand with no lands at all?), but it's less consistent.



Also, no wrong threats only wrong answers. Only counterspells and denying the ability to play a given spell is guaranteed to 'always' be the right answer, and decks now have the tools to beat the universal answers... so you need more specific answers...

grargh. sleep comes soon.

[hauntedechos]

@Whamme:  That is one hell of a post mate.  Cheers.


So now that we've come much closer, if not arrived at a definition of what a "hate deck is".  I think that it is important that I go back and revise the section of the article that defines the term hate deck.  I understand that the cut and dry definition of an ideal is somewhat too restraining to some (in everyday life I would fall into that group), however I think that for purposes of discussion and understanding, it's important to have this structure.

So let's carry on with the actual point of this thread:  Playing a hate deck over an upper tier deck.

Given the understanding of what a hate deck is (thanks to all that have contributed in the discussion on this matter), let's discuss when one would get the most out of playing a hate deck.  I have some preloaded ideas on this matter, however I would rather give the community a chance to jump in and offer thier voice.

It is important for me to once again stress that this thread is a chance for everyone to speak and get thier thoughts out.  There should be no reason that one holds back, if there is something to be learned, then this is a great platform to make that happen.  I know that I've spent a long time reading and trying to apply that knowledge, and this goes back before I even knew what themanadrain.com was.  Since I have started to interact with this site, my understandings have sky rocketed and part of that is taking what I thought I knew and post.  Of course many of my ideas don't fly and are corrected, but that is something that every member should embrace and tap into.

Haunted.

[Whamme]

You play a steeply metagamed deck when it's +EV is maximal given all factors known to you.


The issue is, of course, what the entails. A given deck may be more likely to beat (player X). It may be more likely to make it through the Swiss. It may be more likely to win IF it makes it through the Swiss.


No deck is good in a hostile environment. The 'top tier' decks all have bad matchups SOMEWHERE, and if the meta was 100% your bad matchups, then you lose.


The thing is, if you know what the right deck for given meta is, you KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT DECK IS. If you don't, it's damnably hard to work it out.

This is why the top tier are good ideas, generally. Against a bunch of people who are NOT thinking the same, the odds are that a lot of those people will be defeatable.



I'd only recommend a 'hate deck' for type one if

a) You cannot built an optimal non-hate deck.
or
b) You have a narrow local meta.
or
c) You're really freaking awesome.

...because right now? Meta-ing t1 is a horrible proposition. Too many people who go their own way.

[bronxie]

I think that this thread is a good idea.  It helps out all of us who have played for a long time, but have not really delved into vintage.  I played U/B/W Fish my first time out, and went 3-2.  I don't like that fish is called a hate deck.  I agree that it has many slots for personal favorite cards, but the theme of the deck is turning small creatures sideways with flying and jittes attached.  Fish is an aggro deck, not an all out hate deck.  I ran no sideboard cards maindecked except Leyline of the Void, and that was simply because i know its a good card against most of the tier 1 decks.

Anyway, hate cards are mainly sideboards and even a deck entitled "Hate" is a deck with a certain theme which a person has slightly modified to hose a certain deck or two based on meta.  I maindecked Hymn to tourach one time because my meta was 50% combo.

A hate deck would run nothing but cards that beat only certain decks, and have little to no cynergy together.  Hate cards are cards like: Hymn to Tourach, Extirpate, Gorilla Shaman, Yixlid Jailer, ETC.

Cards like Aven Mindcensor and leyline of the void are good versus more than 50% of the field on a regular basis, making them universal anti-meta cards.  Its a thin line and tough to define, but i hope this helped out a little bit.

Good post Haunted, i enjoy topics like this that help out players like me.

[hauntedechos]

In the developing conversations, I think that the Fish ideal is changing in my mind.  I've once played it with the thought that it IS a hate deck.  Yet after some recent input from Zherbus and Whamme, I've come to think of Fish as a meta deck.  It's constantly changing to adapt to it's meta and the cards used in it are more meta based than hate based because they strive to cover all the bases with somewhat equal relevance.  As you have said and others recently, Hate is much more narrow, almost lending itself to the "rogue" ideal, where you are setting out to destroy the popular decks of the meta, while ignoring the rest of the field.  In that sense the meta should be very narrow to ensure that you don't get beaten by a huge number of decks.

So now that we've flogged that horse good and dead, and we have a very clear understanding of what is and is not a hate deck, lets look at the viability of Hate right now.

As a quick reaction, I'd say it's very risky at best to attempt this in a tournament, especially if there are decent to good players attending.  However, for the sake of argument, let's say you ARE going to build a hate deck for a tournament, what would you pack?  What is the meta you are expecting?  What cards would you have packed in your backpack to switch up, in case you see a meta different than what you expected?

To consider this above question, let us look at the upper tier selection as it stands based on topic discussion.  By doing this we can make a more informed card pool for our hate deck and this is something that a rogue builder or hate deck builder needs to do to increase his/her chances.

Currently we have TSOath and Flash with Rev. kill both surging for the top spot.  However I think it is important to note, that I feel TSOath has shoved Shops out just enough that it is enabling Flash to increase in numbers.  The unfortunate aspect to this is, the two decks do not share any common theme beyond  cards and Force of Will.  The only real thing which ties them together is the Grave yard.  Oath will puke it's library into the yard, using Krosan Reclamation to put some decent cards back into the library and Research to put cards from the RFG zone back into the library.  So that leads us to the inclusion of some sort of Yard hate.

From the aspect of  cards, that would lend one to think that the inclusion of  is a boon as it gives the hate player, REB/PyroBlast and artifact hate.  Artifact hate is of course relevant from the aspect of remaining Shop decks and Staxx.

So what else is there aside from Shop, TSOath and Flash?....oh yeah, Ichorid =(  Well this has a head start with the idea of yard hate alreay in mind, however there are two kinds of Ichorid now and you will have to decide on which one you expect more of to consider it.  With mana ichorid and manaless ichorid, they have both become accustomed to Leyline of the void, so adding something else is going to be important.  When you are looking over your card pool you will need to think of how easy it will be for them to answer your threat.  The deck moves fast and you will only have one chance to make something stick long enough to apply further pressure and hopefully win.

So with that, I'd like to hear from both sides of the fence.  Perhalps there are some builders out there that have some things in mind.  On the other hand, the community of upper tier decks must have some thoughts on how they are looking to beat rival upper tier decks and that is omportant information as well.  Certainly, with the unknown factor of the meta, I think that it is a time to play upper tier decks over hate decks, yet I know that there are some that are still working on Fish Ideal decks right now, trying to adapt it to the current meta of big dudes.  What side are YOU on and what are your plans right now?  Let's discuss.

Haunted.

[bronxie]

Haunted -- I run Leyline of the Void in all sideboards, even if im not playing black.  I play leyline in the sideboard of French Combo now.  Leyline auto hoses three decks (Ichorid, Bomberman, and Flash) and is very helpful versus other decks.  Its a hate card that is a meta card, because it goes in every deck.

[Kaiser von Hugal]

I think the distinction becomes clear when you consider your meta-game in terms of strategic play vs tactical play.  The strategic play creates static effects that influence what can be done.  The tactical play involves the stack.

The prison deck is a good example of the strategic play.  It is designed to make the general playing field untenable for the majority of decks, its focused on denying resources needed to play at the tactical level.  It doesn’t play in terms of the moment but in terms what can take place.
FOW is the king of tactical play as its played  in response to whatever your opponent happens to be doing AT THAT MOMENT. 
Some of the best Hate cards work at the strategic level:  LoTV, Null Rod, Stasis, Geddon
Some of the best Hate cards work at the tactical level:  FOW, Hymn to Tourach, Pithing Needle

I would argue that when I feel compelled to include narrowly focused tactical cards into the MD in order to thwart a dominating deck-type – I have succumbed to building a hate deck.  Generally I would want to include the broadest-based strategic level cards or the broadest tactical level card in the MD.  Balance is a good example.

[hauntedechos]

With most sucessfull decks running Gush/bond and all decks running the heck out of the yard - could we be entering a period where a well timed hate deck could smash a tournament?  The scene is showing growing numbers of Flash players attending tourneys, and even flavour of the week TSOath is having a tough go of things.  Shop is falling back and allowing TTS to attend the parties and ultimately Stifle tricks are at an all time high.  Sure deeze naughts is a quick deck to point the finger at, however, could a well built hate deck smash tournaments under these circumstances, or are there just too many other decks running around to allow us the proper numbers?

Haunted.

[bronxie]

Maindeck Leyline of the Void = GG!

[hauntedechos]

Bronxie, if that were the case then wouldn't we already have every deck running it main?  Certainly it is one of the most solid cards we can include to combat the meta, however I do not have faith that it will crush the format.  If we take Leyline and include it main within our designed hate deck, then it becomes a more powerfull tool as we are looking to amass cards to hate the targeted decks out, while the spend at least one turn looking for bounce -if it's not already in hand.

haunted.

[bronxie]

true.  i think that leyline solves a lot of problems, but is not perfect.  i maindeck them because my meta bows to it, but i also run sideboard extirpate and other stuff.  i dont think all of this could build one perfect deck, or you would end up R/W/B (i tried to build a hate deck once).  Aven Mindcensor is a great card that is good against the entire meta as well.