[Discussion] hate decks vs. Top Tier

[hauntedechos]

Honouring my promotion to full user status, I’m offering this article for discussion and thought.  This article is targeted towards beginners and intermediate players, as I’m sure that tournament seasoned players are already quite aware of the choices and what each has to offer the Vintage Magic player.  The justification for posting in the Open Forums is that the discussion I wish to encourage is surely impossible without the voices of the well seasoned Vintage players


Top begin, we really should break down what a “hate deck” is in contrast to “top decks”.  This really breaks down into a lot of theory that has been produced by many great players and writers over the past decade or so.  Instead of paraphrasing and otherwise desecrating others hard work, I strongly suggest that users read the plethora of articles made available under the “usefull articles” thread in the Open Forums.

So what are “hate decks”?  Hate decks are typified as decks which choose to disable or otherwise hinder a given decks means to victory as their baseline strategy.  For example, blue/white/black Fish will usually pack Null Rods to combat the use of Moxen and utility artifacts, thus slowing the opponent down and forcing them to “play fair”.  Do Null Rods win the game?  No.  They are disabling the opponent from accelerating their game plan, thus “hating” on acceleration.  In another example, consider the use of Meddling Mage in the same arch type.  Meddling Mage is designed to prevent the opponent from playing their win condition out right, or to cripple an integral part of the opponent’s deck.  Again, this does not win the Fish player the game; it simply hinders the opponent from winning or otherwise moving forward with their game plan.  When you decide to play a “hate deck”, it requires that you have a very in depth understanding of the Meta game you are to play against and how you intend to compress your main deck and side board slots to battle through it all.  It is by no means as simple as sleeving a deck of sixty hate cards and slinging them at your opponent.

So what’s the point of playing cards if they are not going to win you the game?  The point is to gain “tempo advantage” – at this point it would be a great boon to readers to understand what tempo is and how it is used in Magic, please look to the usefull articles thread – which roughly translated, means “create more time to try and win”.

Consider this:  You are playing The Mountains Win Again with Magus of the Moon, against a deck running the Gush/Bond engine.  Your opponent is quite capable of victory in three turns, while you require four to five at best.  On your second turn, let us say that you attempt to power out a Magus of the Moon, you opponent casts Force of Will, and you respond by removing Simian Spirit Guide from the game and cast Red Elemental Blast.  Your Magus resolves, and without any basics in play, your opponent is shut out of the game, barring Mox Sapphire resolving.  At this point you haven’t won the game on a technical level, but you have just gained tremendous tempo advantage.  From this position, you can swing with your creatures and more or less go about your game plan without worrying about your opponent out classing your win condition:  the attack step.  Gaining “tempo advantage” is a cornerstone of every “hate deck”:  you simply must force the opponent to “play fair”.

Now that we have briefly looked at “hate decks”, what are “top decks”?  It would be confusing, yet convenient; to simply say they are the opposite of “hate decks”.  “Top decks” are far more complex and intricate by design and typically have multiple ways to achieve their win condition(s).  In this web of painstaking construction, are layers of considerations for both card selection/quality and Meta game understanding and acknowledgement.  To be clear, there are similar aspects to building a “hate deck” and a “top deck” as they both have to consider each other.  Considerations such as:  draw engine, disruption and “answers” to “threats” that are commonly played are all in line with basic building in Magic.  The difference is the unique path that the “top deck” will select to win the game.  This is not to say that "top decks" won’t elect to win through the attack step.  Decks like Grow-A-Tog, MUD, Mono Red Aggro Shop, Oath in most of its variants, all use the attack step to win.  A glaring difference is how they “cheat” (by cheat I mean legaly breaking the basic principals of Magic I.E. draw one card per turn etc.) to get there faster than the “hate deck” can.  The big difference is the superior strategy they will use to win bending the rules set out in Magic.  The dazzling displays of sheer “brokenness” are what make “top decks” appealing and consequently are the reason why they win tournaments with higher percentages.  It’s not just a Storm Combo deck that can hit you with a flurry of spells:  A deck like Grow-A-Tog can do the same, but this time it’s to pump up the Dryad/Psychotog’s power and toughness, while digging to find Cunning Wish or a main deck Berserk and swing for the win.  While  “hate decks” will often try to prevent the casting of key spells and slow you down to beat face for the win, a deck like Stax, or MUD will just lock you out of the game all together, thusly flexing it’s strategy superiority.  There are so many flavours of victory for the player that chooses the path of the “top deck”.  Ultimately the reason why a “top deck” will have a better chance of wining a tournament is because its strategy to winning is superior to the “hate deck’s” tempo advantage plan.  You can read on strategy superiority in the same thread of usefull articles.

So now we’ve glossed over some differences between “hate decks” and “top decks”.  What other considerations are there when electing to play one over the other?  When I first decided to play Vintage Magic in a tournament setting, I had a very limited number of cards.  I had been out of the Magic loop for years and even though I was becoming aware of Vintage decks out there, I simply did not own any of these crazy cards that were pounding the tournament scene.  The first and cheapest attempt I made was with Suicide Black.  Now Suicide is not a hate deck per se, but its game plan, while sound on paper, falls apart in tournament settings.  The next attempt I would make for Tournament Vintage Magic was none other than blue/white/black Fish.  It took me a while to find and save for the Dual lands and key Fish cards, but once I did I had a much better chance in tournaments.  But why was I playing these decks?  I was playing Fish because I did not have the cash to buy neither power, nor the bulk of the cards that I really wanted to play with and it bothered me.  The fact that it bothered me, lead me to another reason to play Fish, even after I was in a position to buy power.  I started to like annoying Vintage players that owned the power.  In one tournament that I played against Uba Stax, I couldn’t keep myself from chuckling!  During the match he became irritated and even went so far as to declare his hatred of Fish (ironic isn’t it)  To start he had three Moxen, and a host of other cards in play, passed the turn and I opened with Black lotus, Tundra, Null Rod and Kataki War’s Wage!  I won’t get into the rest of his reactions, but needless to illustrate further, angering your opponent can be a compelling reason to play “hate decks”, as well as an easy way to draw them into making play errors.  Aside from monetary considerations, relishing in shutting down a thousand dollar deck with a couple o’ five dollar cards, some players just like playing fair decks (while forcing others to play fair) and interacting with other decks in the format.

So what’s expected of each player in contrast?  Well as the “hate deck player” you have to work exceedingly hard to manage your resources and make the correct calls on the game state to achieve victory.  Because your resources are limited, understanding your opponent’s potential and reading the game correctly is imperative.  Hate cards will be acknowledged and thusly will only go so far in games two and three.  To make things worse, your opponent will side in hate for you, this means you will have to work just as hard or harder to keep up with your opponent, often times thinking of the same possible lines of play he/she is contemplating.  On the opposite side of the spectrum, your opponent is looking at the plethora of lines of play and judging the most efficient and resilient way to dispatch you in short order.  The difference here is, while you have to guess as to what he/she is holding and planning, they know what they have in hand and what they can use to see more cards to access more options.  Another difference is that they are considering what “hate” you’ve sided in against them and how to play around it, thusly reducing its effect.  Unfortunately for the hate player, you will be out gunned by the sheer number of threats tossed at you most of the time.  If it seems like playing a “hate deck” is an up hill battle, it is.

On the other side of the fence, not necessarily greener mind you, the “top deck” pilot has a burden as well.  Often times, these considerations come down to timing and analysing optimal lines of play in a timely fashion.  It’s the combo of optimal lines of play and within a timely fashion that can cause the duress on the top deck player.  Even though you have superior resources in the “hate deck” matches, when you enter the ring with another “top deck”, your need to manage and maximize your resources becomes all encompassing.  When do you alt cast Gush? Under what circumstances would this play fall under optimal and other times, squandering resources?  Do you throw that Duress out there to provoke a counter? Or do you save it to clear the way before you combo out?  These decisions can come back to haunt you…

For example:

Turn one you decide to lead with: Polluted Delta for Underground Sea, tap for black and rip a Duress provoking a counter spell.
Fast forward to turn three:  You could go off right now, unless your opponent has Force…hmm, wish you had that Duress now? Pass
On your opponents turn, he combos out in your face, you cast some of the draw spells you were going to use to combo out to find an answer now…but no, GG.
To be clear, a first turn Duress is usually a very solid play if not always.  This was just an attempt to illustrate the idea of resource management within the understanding of the deck you’ve elected to pilot.

It may seem that I’ve simplified the “top deck” player’s burden, but realistically, the management skills in conjunction with timing are huge to the win/loss ratio of a Vintage player.  Self restraint is another huge skill that the “top deck” Vintage player will have to hone fairly quickly in the tournament setting.  Over extending can be the bane of any “top deck” in vintage whilst in the hands of any player lacking self restraint and control.  Just because you can play five spells in a given turn, does not mean you should.  The game state in which you were free to unleash these spells will undoubtedly not be the same when your opponent un taps and has a turn and passes with a full grip and you with 2 cards left in hand.  While this is true of the “hate deck” player as well, it is magnified in decks that have the potential to tutor or dig for answers when they need it or tutor or dig for more draw other times.

Some one on themanadrain.com once posted a query: “why put all that effort into a “hate deck”, when you could be putting the same effort into mastering a deck with a better chance to begin with”?  Well it depends on what you get out of Magic doesn’t it?  Compare Dave Feinstein of team ICBM, thought to be one of the best Fish players in Vintage, obviously not lacking in skill or knowledge, while also owning power.  Now in contrast look at Phillip Schmidt of Team GWS.  Much of the same qualities are present; he’s an exceptional player, owns power and is considered to know his way around a combo deck:  So why the choices?  Dave once told me that he enjoys and trusts in Fish’s inherent consistency.  While it’s a double edged sword for Fish –trading the consistency for less explosiveness, essentially trading a possible tournament win for consistent Top 8 performances- Dave is comfortable and at home with the deck while also enjoying the interaction Fish provides.  On the other hand, Philip (and to be clear, Philip is well versed with turning dudes sideways) once told me that he plays combo as his weapon of choice, because he can always do something, whether he wins takes a loss.  In both these examples (please note that I am not name dropping to further my discussion, but merely illustrating my point with documented material) these players are deriving something personal out of the game.  It’s this personal touch that will be the final rational for playing the deck you decide to play or develop.  As we can see, both sides have their burdens to carry: whether you decide to take on the challenge of figuring out how to pilot Meandeck Tendrils:  making optimal plays and dodging counters and disruption within the time allowed -roughly the speed of a super computer.  Or whether you want to pilot blue/white/black Fish in a sea of Grim Long, there are considerations to be made beyond financial aspects. 

Both sides have their burdens to deal with and both have their price tags.  However what I would like, this look into “hate decks” and “top decks” article to result in, is discussion as to what qualities, strengths and weakness do either deck type hold and under what circumstances it would be objectively best to select a “hate deck” over a “top deck” and vice versa, if ever.

Haunted.

[LotusHead]

Both sides have their burdens to deal with and both have their price tags.  However what I would like, this look into “hate decks” and “top decks” article to result in, is discussion as to what qualities, strengths and weakness do either deck type hold and under what circumstances it would be objectively best to select a “hate deck” over a “top deck” and vice versa, if ever.

I know of several good players who consistantly play the hate decks (fishesque mostly) because they feel they have a better chance with it due to their playskill/style.

For example: I have yet to bring Yawgmoth's Will to a tournament, much less Tendrils, because I can't trust myself with so few win conditions.  I can't always thing 4 turns ahead (at least not as well as LSV or Webster can).  Therefore I bring in brute force with Shops or control heavy Bomberman to adapt to any situation (beatdown with Trinkets, protect a Tinker, etc).

Others really do have to "not ever play drains" because they don't have them (and Power 8/9 eats up all the proxy space one has).

Someone somewhere said that Tier 1 (powered decks) are hate decks for the bad (unpowered) decks.

Nice article.

[Thicketman]

Nice thread man!

[hauntedechos]

@LotusHead: thanks for your contribution to the thread.

@Thicketman: thanks for the encouragement

In terms of the quote from Lotus Head:  It does seem a logical way of looking at things from a "top tier" point of view.  I can honestly say as one who has started to dive into "tier one" decks, that I can relate.  Focusing your energies into a deck that houses a strong baseline strategy, rather than atempting to shut off or otherwise hinder a strong strategy provides you a greater chance, percentage wise, to win a greater number of games/matches.  The discussion I'm trying to encourage is almost exactly what you touched on through quotation.

As the "hate deck" you have a burden of observing the meta game and packing the appropriate hate to over lap multiple match ups.  Certainly this is a difficult task as you have to maximize the slots available to extract the most potent "hate" configuration given the meta game.  Uncovering hate that splashes unto multiple matchups with a significant effect is no small feat.  Managing limited resources is also a huge burden given the onslaught of threats of the "tier one" deck you face.

On the flipside, touching on the quote given Lotus Head, while playing a fully powered deck, including multiple avenues to sucess is not as easy as it may seem.  The more options and threats given, requires increased playskill and resource management equal to or possilby greater than that which the "hate deck" pilot encounters yet at oposite sides of the spectrum.  As a lover of the Fish ideal (Fish has so many incarnations that it is simply beyond the label "archtype"), I have been the one trying to contain an unmanagable number of "outs" while trying to  beat down for four points a turn.  It's stressfull to know that you only have a limited number of options to efficiently hold the opponents baseline strategy at bay.  Currently I am the player housing strategy supiriority over "hate decks", yet learning the art of applying only needed pressure, while managing the resources to keep myself from playing the beat down role because of over extension or untimely plays as a result of misreading game states.

To be sure, learning to crawl (reading usefull articles) before you learn to walk (hate decks), will give a stronger starting point to learn to run (tier one).  Once you reach a point that you feel comfortable to begin piloting decks that have an almost overwhelming number of lines of play, to find the optimal line of play, resulting as a win, you still have a tonne to learn.  I belive it is the management of these skills and understandings that Steve Menendian talks about in terms of his look at luck versus skill in Magic vs. Chess.  The "tier one" deck pilot has an upper hand in terms of resources available, but the burden then becomes the ability to maximize these available resources to the quickest, yet most solid posible conditions to win the game/match.

To lean on Control elements such as a high density of hard counters or lock pieces is a half step towards full development.  There is a definate skill in managing these resources of course, but they are still crutches.  I sleeved up Steve's offering of Tog 2008 post tournament, yet I felt compelled to cut on tutors in favour of increased control measures.  This is the tempo player in me, controling the situation to a point that a clear and free avenue can be achived.  No risks, no interpretation of the opponent, just clear and clean facts of the game state.  By doing this I am cutting down on flexabilty and leaving myself open to broken plays when I've exposed myself or over extended.  On the flipside, by being too conservative and not advancing the game state, I almost Time Walk my oponent because of my own fears.  This is the plight of the "tier one" player who has so many "insane plays" to make, yet can't decide which one is optimal and objectively correct, given the turns game state.

I hope that there is increased testimonial, advice and discussion on the burdens and possibilities of either side if the fence.

Haunted.

[SpaceGhost]

1st -- @hauntedechos -- congratulations on your promotion to full member status and what a nice article to provide for discussion in celebration.

To preface this post, I would like to say that it is what I consider my first real post, so if I stray to far from the spirit of TMD, I apologize in advance and just want to note that some of the minor disagreements that I mention below are intended to further the discussion.  I have only been a member for a short time, but I have been an active "reader" of TMD for quite some time, and I value the community as a whole; consequently, I tried to make the below post as well thought as possible.



To some extent, I disagree that control elements should be globally labelled as crutches (not a claim that you alone have made, by the way).  Whether it is a crutch or not really depends on its specific synergy with the rest of the deck's goals.  Sometimes decks are overly loaded with control elements as a form of denial; however, I would contend that control pieces can be important pieces of a forward advancing strategy.  I think that one could go too far in either direction -- over control or under control, with the former direction being more of a "crutch" and the latter just being reckless.  For me, the key is to find the balance between the two such that risk is minimized while leaving open viable avenues for winning.  Then, one has to weigh the comparative advantages for trading in/out control for speed.  Within this line of reasoning, I don't really think the "crawl" ---> "walk" ---> "run"  &  "reading articles" ----> "hate decks" ----> "tier one"  is really that simple either.  To be fair, I think it might hinge on the definition of "hate" deck.  If we limit the definition to building a deck specifically for a given meta, then I completely agree with almost everything you have stated.  On the other hand, I feel that we could expand on your discussion if we widened the definition of hate -- mainly because I think the restriction of the definition can limit development of new decks, which is difficult enough in and of itself.   

Insted of considering hate to be directed at a specific meta, I have always conceptualized a hate deck to be one that builds some win conditions within a hate framework, where the framework is built upon hating different core elements of the game itself (whether it be land, card drawing, creatures, etc.).  I suppose the simplest example would have to be the Fish ideal (I do endorse that label over the label of archtype).  As a concept, Fish provides a framework that is capable of hating almost any element of the game that another specific deck may try to exploit.  Now we can think of "hate" as a general type of deck and then the options for building an overall framework become more variable.  It could be argued that tier one decks that lock the opponent out of the ability to do anything (like Stax) are just more evolved hate decks -- hate decks that have evolved from focusing hate on one type of deck to a hate deck that "hates on" a core component of the game itself.  This is almost like global hate vs. local hate.  Within the global hate, the deck can build-in other win conditions.  Thus, I think hate is like anything else, different levels of complexity -- but still hate nonetheless.

I almost see this discussion as one of proactive vs. reactive decks.  Top tier decks are about as proactive as you can get, establishing the win conditions as soon as possible.  Reactive decks are built to a specific environment and aim at reacting to the key elements of the opponent's deck, whether that be true reaction (like a Swords to Plowshares) or preemptive reaction (like a Meddling Mage).  For me, some of the appeal of playing a reactive deck is forcing your opponent to play Top Tier decks that require multiple win conditions.  If your opponent is relying a single threat, and you hate it out then they deserve to be beaten by a 2/2 over 10 turns.  The difficult part is evolving that reactive deck into a deck with viable, multiple win conditions beyond the standard swarm of little guys for the slow beating.  I think that mastering this evolution and combination of winning with certain core hate elements can result in truly innovative decks that are quite powerful.  However, speculating about and designing such a deck are really two different things, so perhaps I am a little delusional.       

[hauntedechos]

@Spaceghost:  I find your post interesting on many levels.  I know that I am not as learned as some of the longstanding players/members of TMD, as such I don't know if there are arguments on fundamental levels that can be made.

In terms of your thought that prison decks may be considered "hate decks" that have evolved:  I really find this concept to be interesting. I see where your line of thinking may have come from and to be sure, Stax was a creature built to "hate" on GAT in it's previous hay days.  However, I think it's a look at baseline strategies that would tell a "hate deck" apart from a "prison deck".

 / / Fish has tools that are ment to reduce the effectiveness of cards that might advance a given decks game plan.  I.E. Null Rod vs. moxen, or Meddling Mage on a win condition or major development piece.  None of these are going to win the game on thier own, nor create an unwinable game state for the opponent, they simply "hate out" a portion of the opponents deck or plan.

To look at Stax, the baseline strategy IS to lock the opponent out of the game, that essentially IS the win condition and thusly is not a matter of hate, but a matter of supirior strategy.  Stax applies disruption pieces untill a few of them come together to form a "lock" and thusly keeps you from winning the game. 

There is a similarity that may feel like an evolved sence of "hate".  I think that "prison" is a concept that exsists beyond playing cards that effect a given meta, they are cards that effect the game no matter what deck you play.  Perhalps here is where the sence of evolved hate comes from for you.  If a hate deck is reactive to a meta game, then prison is a hate deck to the very game of Magic itself and it's building blocks...very interesting indeed.

Haunted.

[feyd]

Any given magic metagame is roughly equivalent to a ven-diagram where certain circles (decks) overlap, converge, or avoid one another.  In magic speak one deck can either have a large, small or non-existent ammount of interaction with any other given deck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven_diagram
Any magic deck can be viewed of as a circle in a ven-diagram.  The point of the "hate-deck" is to maximize it's contact (interaction) with other decks.  A hate deck is no good if the opponent runs away with the game on the first turn and wins right there on the spot. 
  If you think about it each deck has certain strengths and weaknesses.  Each strength, though, when viewed objectively can either be useful or not useful in any given matchup.
   Example 1: 
A hate deck is running 4 null rods in the maindeck.  The player made a decision to run them main because he believed that a good portion of the field he expected to face would be running artifacts.  What happens when this player has a match against ichorid?  Those 4 maindeck cards are innefective against this opponent.  On the other hand they may be game-winning in other matchups. 
   Example 2:
This same deck is running 4 maindeck swords to plowshares.  Say this player faces a combo deck which uses tendrils of agony as it's only win condition.  Those 4 maindeck swords to plowshares are useless in this particular matchup yet could be stellar or game-winning in other matchups.
     The point of a hate-deck is to cover as many bases as possible while at the same time not overly-corrupting its basic game winning strategy.  Usually the hate deck tries to combine these two aspects; try and interact/hinder the oppoenent while developing a win condition.  It just so happens to be that many of these dual-aspect cards happen to be creatures.  Hence fish decks make excellent hate decks. 
     The inherent flaw in any hate deck should be obvious; usually they try to encompass all decks within their spheres of influence yet due their intrinsic design they are incapable of containing all the shennagans that is thrown their way.  In other words they attempt to have, at the very least, 50/50 matchups against the entire format and the reality of the situation is that no deck can ever trully have game against the entire format.
     On the opposite end of the spectrum is the "top-tier" decks.  These decks attempt the very opposite of "hate decks"; they abandon any attempt to cover all the bases and instead focus on a more streamlined and dedicated approach at winning. 
     Decks like oath and gat eschew "excessive" ammounts of win-conditions with a tight, compact number that they can easily protect and are also symbiotic with their strategy (drawing cards, playing spells, countering threats, using the graveyard). 
     Players must decide whether they want to play  a "hate deck" and cast a net in which to trap other players and ruin their days or play a "top tier" deck and attempt to punch through all the hate and win.
     Any deck that is worth its salt requires skill; whether you need to know when to cast duress, when/if to counter a threat, what to discard/dredge properly.  Like others have said before me it all depends on the individuals playstyle and what they personally expect from magic.  If a new player has a small budget with the hopes of ending games on turn one or two then I believe he may be sorely dissapointed.  Like Haunted said:  you have to crawl before you can walk.  Sometimes a player has to learn the ropes with an "underpowered" deck such as fish in order to realize what he can realistically expect to accomplish in any given matchup and also what his opponent is capable of.
     Once a player has a deck that fits him/her like a glove the decisions that come up become easy calls and correct lines of play become like second nature. 

[mr cheese]

The idea about Hate Decks that i really dislike is the fact that if your meta is random, then they are much harder to build. This is particulary annoying for me, because I see underpowered Fish players go 0-4. There playskill could be  main factor, but many times they play cards that are randomly efficient due to the outcome of the metagame. Even highly skilled players would probaby have a hard time if they had to build a hate deck for a metagame that consists of 40+ different decks, but not all of them are played.

What would you guys suggest for these kinds of situations? The reason I am asking, as stated in the article, is that many players do play budget, do read the useful aricles, and still can't catch a break playing underpowered Fish.

[Harlequin]

I would say that this is traditional or classic view of a Metagame. Here's a couple things that I think make a viable (to top8) vintage deck. 

1) ALL vintage decks must have some sort of plan against every deck in the format.  For a deck to be viable and consistantly sucessful, it has to have a game-plan for every deck in the format.  I'm not saying it has to have a beter than 50/50 chance to beat any deck (because thats not realistically possible) but it has to have no worse than a 1 in 3 match record against all decks.

2) Bar none - All vintage decks have disruption (be it 'hate' or 'counter').  I mean even Belcher packs duress or Magus of the Moon now adays.  Its just simply impossible for a vintage deck to not have some sort of disruption in it. 

When you look at those two criteria, You could theoretically classify any deck as a "Hate" deck. 

The Metagame Wheel of old (Agro v Combo v Control) doesn't exsist.  In all truth - aggro is dead in vintage.  The proof is in the pudding, look at Shop Agro. Generally shop aggro has 8 to 12 slots devoted purely to tempo disruption.  Also, there is really no pure combo either... When a "Control" deck like Tyrant Blue or TSOath can win on turn 3... What the hell is combo??  Again, every combo deck must pack duress effects or countermagic or to both ensure the tempo decks can't gain control AND so that control decks can't combo out first!  And to that effect, can you even classify Bomberman?  Its a deck that has plenty of countermagic, reactive disruption, 'dudez that turns sideways', and a potential turn 1 kill??

In my oppinion, because the line between Agro, Control, and Combo is so disolved... you can't really talk about the metagame by architype any more.  Its all about the actual decks.  I prefer to think about the metagame as a Wave. 

Code:

 ----------motion-------------------------->
  (1)    (2)    (3v4)    (5*)      (6)

So imagine your typical beach wave.  Low at 1, starts to build at 2, has a nice curl at 3 and 4, sweeps back at 5, and is low at 6 again... I was going to ASCII it out, but F-that.

We'll start at the middle.  "3v4" This is the title fight in the metagame, and it represents the apex of the breaking wave.  So for example here you might have GAT vrs Spheres.  Or GAT vrs Oath.  Or Oath vrs Flash/Storm.  Both decks are focused on each other.  Both decks are dedicating alot of sideboard, and even mainboard to deal with the other.  They create an upward momentum (with each deck devoting more and more) until the wave will eventually 'break' so to speak.   And one deck will emerge as the victor. 
At the (2) and (1) slot you have decks that are just not good in the current meta.  These are decks that are 'behind the momentum.'  Decks that beaten by both decks that are compeating in the wave. 
At the (6) slot, you have decks that are "ahead of thier time"  They are solid hate decks, but the meta is off somewhere else... so they have no one to beat. 
AT (5) is where a true Metagame deck is.  The "Hate" of the wave, is the deck that has a strong match against BOTH decks that are in the wave.  The deck in this spot litterally 'surfs' on the momentum of other two competing decks.   

The most pronouced wave in recent history was as follows:

3v4:  GAT vrs Spheres - Gush has been recently unrestricted and Thorn of Ametyst is in print.  GAT has the advantage of history and already tweeked builds, while Shops have the advantage of newly found consistancy and X-factor inovations. 
1 and 2:  Non-shop Agro and Fish.  Not only are they outclassed by Shops "big dudes" but they have a hard time overcomming the Grow side of GAT.
6: Ichorid and Flash.  Both decks are ok, no one is really focused on them.  But they are catching alot of splash hate from Shops answers to GAT.
5*: Along comes Gush Oath.  Tyrant Oath is poised perfectly.  The original build featuring Triskelavus has a nearly unbeatable match against Shops .. but lacks the tools and focus to consistantly beat GAT.  The Reflection build evens the deck out more to be conistant enough against both Shops and GAT... so it takes the meta by storm.

So the question is:  Is Tyrant Oath a "Hate" deck?  As a person close to its design, it was created with the Spesific intent of being strong against both GAT and Shops because that was where all the force was in the meta.  It didn't really even have hate cards in for either match.  No Submerge, no eflux... what it had was a stratigic superiority.  It was fast enough to beat GAT and the combo was easy enough to slide in under spheres.  Lastly, Tyrant was a huge upset to the 'win' of both decks.

Today, we are onto the next wave.  We have TSOath being attacked by Combo style decks.  Shops have lost all thier momentum, and GAT is trying to retool and get back on top.  Infact in a few posts I casually say that "We are moving away from GAT." In this example, I litterally mean the wave is just starting to pass through GAT and onto other decks.
So again, Jer and I started thinking about a deck to beat both TSOath and Combo.  I feel that the the 'surfer' in the current meta is Tyrant Blue.  We designed it with this goal in mind.  A control deck that is built on the concept that cards in hand are more important than untap-steps.  This is a stratigic advantage over two decks that already plan to give thier opponent as few turns (and by extetion: as few untapsteps) as possible.  The goal of tyrant blue it to exploit that both combo and oath have a common weakness.  Both decks can have a hard time getting rolling again after thier first hand is burned.

Is Tyrant Blue a Hate deck??  It runs basically NO hate cards.  Every card in the deck is a sweeping card that falls under 'general control' Force, MisD, Remora, Repeal, Tyrant, Mindslaver, DSC, Oath, Tormod's Crypt, Brainfreeze, spell snare... These are cards that effect many match ups.  Obviously they change power level depending on the pairings - but no card is sistered spesfically to one matchup.  The only real 'hate' cards in the deck are the two Hurkyls recalls in the board.  Those are the narrowest cards in the deck! 

Again, this is nothing against the author, I enjoyed the article.  I don't even really disagree with what he posted.  I'm just wondering if Haunted and other would classify Tyrant Blue a "Hate" deck.  And if so, how about TSOath... and as a subset of that, does popularity and sucess change a deck from being a "hate" deck to a "Top" deck (as we saw when TSOath was a "hate" deck against GAT, but then moved into a current day "Top" deck)?  Or was it something else?

[Stormanimagus]

Today, we are onto the next wave.  We have TSOath being attacked by Combo style decks.  Shops have lost all thier momentum, and GAT is trying to retool and get back on top.  Infact in a few posts I casually say that "We are moving away from GAT." In this example, I litterally mean the wave is just starting to pass through GAT and onto other decks.
So again, Jer and I started thinking about a deck to beat both TSOath and Combo.  I feel that the the 'surfer' in the current meta is Tyrant Blue.  We designed it with this goal in mind.  A control deck that is built on the concept that cards in hand are more important than untap-steps.  This is a stratigic advantage over two decks that already plan to give thier opponent as few turns (and by extetion: as few untapsteps) as possible.  The goal of tyrant blue it to exploit that both combo and oath have a common weakness.  Both decks can have a hard time getting rolling again after thier first hand is burned.

Is Tyrant Blue a Hate deck??  It runs basically NO hate cards.  Every card in the deck is a sweeping card that falls under 'general control' Force, MisD, Remora, Repeal, Tyrant, Mindslaver, DSC, Oath, Tormod's Crypt, Brainfreeze, spell snare... These are cards that effect many match ups.  Obviously they change power level depending on the pairings - but no card is sistered spesfically to one matchup.  The only real 'hate' cards in the deck are the two Hurkyls recalls in the board.  Those are the narrowest cards in the deck! 

Again, this is nothing against the author, I enjoyed the article.  I don't even really disagree with what he posted.  I'm just wondering if Haunted and other would classify Tyrant Blue a "Hate" deck.  And if so, how about TSOath... and as a subset of that, does popularity and sucess change a deck from being a "hate" deck to a "Top" deck (as we saw when TSOath was a "hate" deck against GAT, but then moved into a current day "Top" deck)?  Or was it something else?

Hey Jeff. Noah here. I really respect your opinion, but I do have one question. As a long time combo player I'm not sure that Tyrant Blue really DOES have a good game against Combo. In my experience playing with/against combo countermagic is not enough as the combo play can just wait til the right moment and win with Duress/Extirpate backup. Since Misdirection really only PROTECTS FoW for you it's pretty useless on its own and thus you are left almost zilch answers to Combo if they Extirpate your FoW.

I'm not saying Tyrant Blue CAN'T beat combo, I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that it has better game against Combo than GAT or Tyrant Oath that run Duress/Thoughtseize packages. If you give combo time (as this deck seems to do) it'll find a way to get there. Again, please come out and point out if/how I'm wrong as this is mere speculation.

Also, I have a thread going right now on if Xantid Swarm should be incorporated into modern day Long Variants. Woult THIS be a solid answer to Tyrant Blue? How about GAT and Tyrant Oath? I'd really like your opinion on this one as it will most likely shape what direction I try to take my Storm Combo decks in the future.

[Harlequin]

Hey, I don't want to derail this thread, because I like where it is headed... my response to your question is in the Tyrant Blue thread.

[hauntedechos]

I have not had enough time to ponder the idea of whether or not deck classifications are decomposing.  I do feel that the days of static builds have come to pass, as a single alignment cannot compete with cross classifications.  To illustrate, simply consider Bomber man as was suggested.  In today's game state, you simply must have multiple ways of playing the game out.

In consideration of what classifies a deck as "hate" or "tier one", I think the answer is actually not as convoluted as it might seem to some.  Simply put, a "hate deck" is designed to attack a given decks weakness.  To illustrate, look to Fish (again Fish is a very easy example to use for simplicities sake) and it's use of Null Rod to "hate" the power that is used in the vast majority of every Vintage deck.  The use of Null Rod is not pushing the victory condition of the deck forward, it is slowing the "tier one" deck down.  You are not gaining additional damage per turn, you are gaining subsequesnt turns to deal damage.  To further this, consider Wasteland and Kataki and you have a "hate" based attack on mana development and acceleration.  This dynamic does not result in a win condition on it's own, it enables additional turns to win through the attack step.

When the example of TSOath is given up for consideration, it most certainly does not qualify as a "Hate" deck.  The considerations of it's build were designed with the current "tier one" decks in mind.  TSOath does not include cards that retard the opponents baseline strategy, it simply takes advantage of the current meta's trend towards the attack step and exploits this.  If anything this exemplifies keen deck design at the hands of it's innovators.

Decks will wax and wane as trends develop and collapse onto themselves.  An example of this could be Combo decks suffering greatly in popularity at the hands of resistor effects.  However, with out resorting to excessive "hate" cards, Combo trends are looking towards Drain Tendrils to adapt.  Mana Drain is not a "hate" card, it does not attack any specific aspect of Magic.  It's secondary function of producing an accelerant, is an adaptation for Combo to capitolize on high casting cost spells to power out threats in order to futher it's strategy whilst ignoring the strategy of  resistor useage.

I would have to say, the closest things offered so far on this thread, in terms of expanding the classification of a "hate" deck, are Stax and Shop decks.  The primary goal of these decks is to lock you out of the game outright and prevent you from playing anything usefull, or otherwise.  This is somewhat in line with a "hate" decks strategy of attacking your weakness to gain turns to swing.  The "prison" ideal is a strategy of it's own, but the ideal cares little for what cards an opponent needs to resolve to advance, it simply says "no" to everything any deck wants/needs to resolve.   In this respect, although Stax was designed within a specific metagame, it's strategy transends that metagame and continues as a sucessfull strategy because of its "blanket effect".  The only reason I would exclude "prison" as "hate", is because it does not target a weakness, it attempts to shut all decks down the same way.

As a last example, when players move to game two and possibly three, if we side in cards that target the weakness of the opponent,  we are "hateing", as this does not further our game plan, it weakens the opponents's.  When you select TSOath to pilot at a tournament, you are selecting a deck which currently has a supirior strategy within the current metagame.  This is not hating the metagame, as it does nothing to hinder the metagame or the decks present, it's strategy is simply not as effected as Combo, aggro, or control is, thusly not qualifying it as a "hate" deck.

To address the question concerning Fish in the current metagame.  I think that your observation is correct.  Fish has a hard time when the field is as diverse as it is and this is something that I was touching on when I mentioned a "hate" decks burden.  What are some consideration when building a Fish build for today?  Look at what common links many decks have with each other.  Currently you have GAT, TOG, Gush Tendrils, TSOath all running the Gush/Bond engine.  This means a sea of mana bases that are light on basics and mana sources in general.  Wasteland and Null Rod and Kataki are a good start here.  What else do we have?  We have a current trend of creatures, so StP is a boon here.  White also offers Orim's Chant, which "hates" the Gush/Bond engines abusive spell chain application.  It also has splash hate towards combo/control decks, as do the above mentioned.  Fish's creatures are smaller in nature, so the inclusion of Jitte can offer both utility against smaller utility creatures, and also beef up our own dudes to level the playing field.  Fish has an inherently terrible Oath matchup, which given TSOath rising popularity, will require seal of Cleansing or Kami of Ancient Law, though the former would be a better choice as it also has splash hate unto Shop decks.  Fish can also choose between Brain Freeze to combat topdeck tutors of Stifle to combat Storm cards and Oath as well.  The key is to aknowledging the common grounds of each deck and find the most effective ways to attack them, whist maximizing the number of decks hit by each "hate" card selected.  You can certainly PM me to continue this conversation as this thread is not about Fish specificly.

Haunted.

[Anusien]

For me the problem with hate decks is twofold:
1)a) They attack with creatures for the win.  They have too many slots devoted to hating out other decks to do anything but.  This means that they are susceptible to being blown out by the other player.  It's like when Shop decks go for turn 1 Sphere, get it forced, and get blown out by combo or something similar.
1)b) They're slow.  Even when things go right for you, you're attacking in multiples of 2 or 3, which means you can get beat just by the other deck drawing out of it.
2) There are no wrong threats, only wrong answers.

[hauntedechos]

Hey Anusien, good to talk to you last night on IRC,

I think that problem B being a non-factor (ie. selecting the right answers) can alliviate issues 1a&b.  The real issue that pushes a "hate deck" out of contention is how diverse the meta is.  As it stands now with all the building and established archtypes going on, "hate decks" cannot cover the bases and thusly the hate cards selected, while trying to maximize the splash damage, are weakened in effectiveness and thusly do not buy enough time.

As the meta narrows, the hate cards can be slightly more narrow in nature, but offset this fact by the effectiveness of the cards themselves.

In the end I think that it comes down to Strategy Supiriority.  Hate cannot over come this and hence why the consistency makes Top 8 but crumbles to the advanced pilots and Strategem within and falls short of 1st place.  Dave Feinstein, an exceptional Fish pilot (and R/G beats previously) contradicts what I claim here, with a Win:  However Yawg's Will was banned from play during that tournament, which leads one to wonder, given the combo heavy meta of that time.

[playkenny]

Hi all,

This is my first post so hope I don't tread on any toes! Love vintage and TMD so thought I'd finally give some of my own imputs about things. My thoughts on the article:

It seems this article is based on deck selection for a given meta, and narrowed down to "play best deck, or "play hate deck" where the defination i'm getting of a hate deck is something akin to fish, where creatures do most of the disruption; and the disruption attacks decks weaknesses and STALLS for the win.

There is a third option, of playing the deck which has game vs the top deck AND has the best chance of dodging the percieved hate decks hence reducing the hate's splash damage. Something like a "good hate deck". In the current meta, there are just to many decks to disrupt whist maintaining a quick clock. The closest thing to a good "hate" deck at the moment is stifle nought. I call it a "hate" becasue is has "hate" cards for the current meta AND poses a quick clock - basically what fish is. If you look at the general meta, you have GAT, Oath, Flash and Ichorid as major players, so amongst the stifles and duresses, threads of disloyality's and the 2 turn clock and a tuned SB, it has come from nothing to something. Its one of the reasons its becomming a top deck. But then when the meta settles a new hate deck will come along which takes dreadnoughts into account (say packing chalice for 1), or Staxs addapts into maindecking chalices again, etc.

Anyways, i'm not sure this discussion looks into that, and don't want to derail it, but if your choosing between hate and tier 1, I would have to say that choosing the Tier 1 deck (at the cuurent meta) is just better. Hate decks just aren't consistant.

Hate decks are usually best played when you have:
Narrow meta
Card issues (unable to obtain power for example)
Just wanna play something different or you like hateish decks.

I'm not sure why players play hate decks otherwise. Perhpase they wish to leverage pure skill rather than ripping brokenness. Narrow meta's are obviously the best times to play hate and when its strongest, but even then, you have still to determine wether that hate deck will work. See something like Mirridon Standand, or Legacy when Flash was around. Narrow meta's allows for more deck space since the hate cards already overlap to the other decks (i.e. the top decks have a consistant weakness) enabling either more disruption or speed/clock depending on your deck and play style.

But even in a narrow meta, hate decks suffer inconsistancy and no way to grab free wins. Hate decks can just loose outright to sheer brokenness even if you have all your hate pieces on hand and board. The main problem is not having the right answer at the right time, which is what hate decks are usually about - attacking weaknesses with their answers (like Magus of the moon vs Gat).

Something that hauntedechos said got me thinking; I think Stax (prison version) is just a fast and more consistant hate deck, where its hate/stall cards are universal amongst all decks. Originally, stax was created to target the top decks weaknesses - GAT's weak mana base, but sits just been resilant enough to become tier 1. But still, its just suffers like other hate decks - cannot finding the right hate pieces at the right time, its just that staxs can stall much longer.

[hauntedechos]

@PlayKenny:  Thanks you for the interest in this thread and the effort to keep it going.  Nice first post. 

To continue into the conversation,  I agree that there is a larger selection than simply "hate" and "tier 1" decks.  However, Hate decks also fall into the category of "tier two", as does Naughts, regardless of different baseline strategies.  Other examples of other non-hate "tier two" decks can be Doomsday, Meandeck Tendrils, Suicide or Legend Black to start.  I agree that ones selection of a deck, would not fall neatly into hate or Tier one options and certainly that was not my intent.  I was speaking on a wider point of view that, typicaly, one would select a "tier one" deck if they enjoyed the skill level of said decks and had the means to build it.  By the same same token, typicaly it is the reverse factors that lead one to play a "hate" deck or deck with "hate" elements built into it, this would include your offering of Naughts.

In the end, there are a multitude of reasons why we select one over the other, even within the same categories, so let's hear them!!

Let's do a little research on themanadrain.com shall we?  Don't worry, it will be painless and will give you the chance to post w/o having to do homework, thus ensuring you avoid warnings and having your posts moved, yet still granting you satisfaction of being apart of the best Magic: The Gathering website.

1 What factors lead YOU  to select the decks that you do? 
2 What deck are you currently favouring and why? 
3 What is your all time favourite deck and why?

For thoes of you that have been interviewed by me before, this might seem familiar, heh.  So to get the ball rolling, I'll  include my own answers.

1 When I first started playing Magic in tournaments, I was inexpirienced and tight on funds.  The inexpirience lead me to play a hand dissruption deck which failed miserably to the strategy supiriority of pretty much every other deck in the room.  Today the factors are, metgame consideration first and comfort level of compitent piloting second.

2 I'm currently in between decks at the moment.  I've been working on a deck that is somewhat of a hybrid between Mono  Stax and mono  Shop, it's still in testing. On the other hand I've also begun testing with a list of TOG that is slightly off what smmenen has offered up in his starcitygames article.

3 U/W/B Fish, hands down.  I love the interaction, the frustration it can cause my opponent and it's consistency.  I've worked on U/W/B Fish with Mr. Feinstein and just felt really good about Magic while playing Fish.  It's a Fair deck that makes the opponent play fair or at least hold back the brokeness for a while.

Okay mana drainers, let's see some input from you.  This is a great chance for everyone to evaluate a large spectrum of players and take a look into what leads people to playing the decks that they do.

Haunted.

[Shock Wave]

I would say that this is traditional or classic view of a Metagame. Here's a couple things that I think make a viable (to top8) vintage deck. 

1) ALL vintage decks must have some sort of plan against every deck in the format.  For a deck to be viable and consistantly sucessful, it has to have a game-plan for every deck in the format.  I'm not saying it has to have a beter than 50/50 chance to beat any deck (because thats not realistically possible) but it has to have no worse than a 1 in 3 match record against all decks.

That's just not true. Some decks do not have a prayer of winning certain matchups and are still strong metagame choices because they fair well against the rest of the field. I'm curious as to how you arrived at 33% as the minimum match win percentage against any given archetype.

[SpaceGhost]

Hauntedechos -- just wanted to compliment your thread.  I am enjoying the theoretical level of it.

First, I would be glad to see some more discussion about an idea I mentioned in my first post.  Mainly, that we can have the "evolved" hate decks that decide to hate a key component of the game of magic.  I view this as "breaking" that aspect of the game in the opposite direction.  For instance, take the Gush draw engine -- this aims to break the basic rule of magic in such a manner as to exploit the normal restriction of drawing a card per turn (not to mention using mana to play for spells).  This is very good at breaking this restriction completly and going all out.  Now, on the other hand, one could imagine a deck that prevented players from drawing cards at all (like some old life gain/Zur's Weirding decks back before people knew better)-- this would be considered a hate deck, but it would be a hate deck built on removing a key component of the game, drawing cards.  One of my contentions is that it is easier to exploit a component of the game mechanics in a positive manner than to shut it down completely.  

This difficulty in shutting down a core component leads people to using decks that are designed to shut down a specific deck (or engine).  As the deck becomes more aligned with stopping a specific deck than it misses out on a larger amount of the metagame considerations.  Unfortunately, if the larger metagame is focused on, a hate deck can become more vulnerable to the "Tier 1" decks.  This is what makes the hate decks discussed above more of a Tier 2 type of deck for the reasons discussed in this thread.

Now to answer the questions:

1.  I select the decks I play because of player interaction.  I want the game to be one of interaction -- a hard fought battle where the outcome is teetering back and forth.  For myself, I don't forgo a deck just because it is too expensive to build.  Granted, I don't have a Black Lotus (or Workshops), but I have enough of the powerful cards that I can play around with most archetypes.  Some of the decks I just find more boring to play than anything.  For me, Flash is ridiculously boring to play--but I think it is okay to play against if the notorious first turn can be avoided).  The high-powered combo decks have some learning curve, but I think most people at TMD probably could master them given some practice.  

2.  Currently, I am working on a deck that abuses Chains of Mephistopheles.  I am drawn to it because I have liked the card since it came out in Legends.  I think it is absurdly powerful, but it takes a high-level of skill to play properly and to play around, especially in a Type I environment.  I also like it because it is off the beaten path a little.  I really like to try to create workable decks that are innovative and viable in the environment (unfortunately, I live in an area with a pretty piss poor Type I community).  I do have a friend that pilots Flash, and my deck runs about 50/50 with it as of now.  We sleeved up GAT last week and my deck went 2 - 2.  We are working through the metagame considerations, and when it is done I will post to TMD so I can have reliable expectations.

3.  Like hauntedechos, I really like Fish.  I favor U/W/B as well for various reasons.  I like player interaction (btw, I don't think that FoW and Duress count as player interaction) and think it is best if everyone is playing on more of an even playing field.  I like to see skill in reacting to an opponent -- and I think it shines in Type I if a lid can be put on some of the ridiculousness.

[Harlequin]

I think this illustrates Anusien point of there are no wrong threats only wrong answers...  to take your example.  Drawing Cards is never bad - in any match up.  Abusing land drops via Fastbond can be costly, but its basically never really "Bad."  Sure it can be a bad 'play' especially if theres a chains of meph down, or a trinisphere down... or if you need the gush as your 1 and only blue card for force.  But that's talking about choices in a gamestate not so much a match-up. 

But a card like Chains will be "bad" if you play against workshop aggro, and worse against a deck like Ichorid or Uba-stax. 

/////////////////////////

For my questionnaire thingy:

1. Factors:
A) What were the most popular decks at the last event I atteneded, and more importantly - what do I expect at the next even (will it be a copycat meta or a reponse meta).
B) What is the bear bones stratigy of the best two decks, and what common theme's do they have if any.  What are thier weakness and strengths.
C) Can I find a deck that expliots the weaknesses of those popular decks while offering a stratigic advantage?
-- If yes, then I build a deck around that counterstratigy
-- If no, then I probably just play the stronger of those two most popular decks because it essentially has no forseable counter.

2.  It really depends on how far the metagame in my area shifts away from GAT, and where on the Oath-hate spectrum we are.  Tyrant Blue offers a good game against combo (which is a good counter to oath).  But perhapse a combo deck would be better suited beat Oath spesifically.  So right now I'm still fishing...

3.  I have to go with the U/W fish deck that Jer and I ran durring the early days of Gifts (in the Timevault era).  It just was such a neat deck that really was a solid anti-drain anti-gifts deck.  It had all the tools it needed to answer Gifts... while it bonked them to death with "Curious Men" and Ninjas.  It even had Icathan "Fandanglers" and/or "Lobsterheads" for Control Slaver.  The format was all about Moxen back then and null rod shined prowdly over that flaw.  OH nothing was better than 20 turns of an unblockable flying bi-curious man beats. 

[SpaceGhost]

@Harlequin -- I definitely understand what you are saying about there not being wrong threats only wrong answers.  However, I don't think your argument really addresses the point I was trying to get at by a type of global hate.  Drawing cards is never bad....in fact, most decks try to get card advantage some how (even if it is just a one of with Ancestrall Recall).  The point is that if you can shut down drawing cards, then you have crippled an opponents strategy because you have crippled a core component of the game itself.

For instance, if you had Maralen of the Moonsong and a Shadow of Doubt imprinted on an Isochron Scepter (way too clunky, but for illustrative purposes), you would be completely able to shut your opponent out of the game.  No more draws, period.  This is a type of hate that doesn't care about which deck it plays against...it shuts down the whole mechanic of drawing cards.  Of course, this is a sliding scale.  A slight less clunky, but less of a lock would be Maralen with Mindscensor....severly cripples the opponent while letting you dig for answers, but it doesn't shut down the mechanic to the extent that one would want.  So hating out a mechanic vs. hating out a deck is sort of a sliding scale of hate.  (Note: This is meant as a theoretical point,  ) 

Chains isn't necessarily "bad" against workshop aggro.  It might be, depending on the deck it is in; however, it also can be perfectly viable as well -- it really depends on the overall design of the deck.  For instance, if one gets out Chains and a Puzzlebox against workshop aggro, stax, or MUD, then they are locked out of doing anything else in the game....

[hauntedechos]

Greetings Ladies and Gents,

I've found that the lines are blurred for me in some matters.  No I am certainly not drinking again -why are you all looking at me like that? I'm not...really.  I'm thinking about what Space Ghost has recently said in concerns of hating out mechanics versus metagaming a hate deck.  When you start to select and refine a "hate deck" for the given meta and tournament in question, there is an evaluation of how these decks win.  Also there is an evaluation of common themes amongst the decks you anticipate to encounter.

   For example: the gush/bond engine.

For me the next step is to look at how I can efficiently hinder these factors, or hate them out.  I rarely see myself trying to shut down a mechanic of the game, so much as trying to show the chink in the armor (never liked that term) of the current trend.  To illustrate:  Waste and Stifles and Resistor effects unleashed on Gush/Bond engine.  The natural predator to this, as smennen points out, Shops.  So I then hate with Energy Flux, Null Rod and Kataki SB.  Again, revealing the metagame weakness and attacking it effectively or "hateing it out" in other terms.  These are the considerations of "hate" deck players, the meta game process, it's also part of what makes it fun to play "hate deks"

To look at what Space Ghost is saying, If I play a deck that shuts off mechanics of the game itself, then this is advanced "hatered" no?  I'd be inclined to say yes.  To effectively do this, you should go a through similar process by evaluating which area(s) of play are abused most as well as secondary areas and compare that in contrast to your ability to shut if off.  At the same time, considering how to accomplish efficiently so as to not leave yourself open.

Shutting off a mechanic however, is not the same as making the gamestate unplayable (and consequentially that prison is not the same as a "hate deck"), at least not on a technical level.  To be fair, yes if you have a Trinisphere, Sphere of resistence, crucible of Worlds, stripmine and Null Rod out the opponent might as well be looking at a card that reads "opponent may not cast spells and you may blow up one of his/her lands per turn...oh and expensive jewelry is also useless.  It's the fact that you have to get to that point that seperates the two.  A hate card is often stand alone and it's effect as a single card is felt as soon as it resolves, the result of this card's resolution may or may not shut off a mechanic.  At this point the gamestate is still not "unplayable", it's just very unlikely that the opponent will get out from under your thumb.  Consider Kataki War's Wage and Stax.

This concludes my poderings on whether "prison" can be considered "hate" or not.  Not it cannot, but only on technical levels.  Can shutting off a mechanic of the game itself be considered "hate", yes it can, as long as it reflects the current meta and that the win condition is something other than shutting off the mechanic.

Haunted.

[LotusHead]

If I play a deck that shuts off mechanics of the game itself, then this is advanced "hatered" no?  I'd be inclined to say yes. 

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.

[Everrid1234]

Hi Haunted 

I really like your style of argueing. You try to highlight the pros and cons of the 2 main deck types without claiming that your opinion is THE opinion.
I also tried to find out the best deck type for a long time and the funny thing is that i also feel the best while playing fish. I had times while i thought "wow, this top tier deck i play against now is so cool and broken, i have to try it by myself!" . But after some testing i found the weaknesses and in the end Fish was the deck i liked the most.
I don't want to promote anythig. If i felt best with Flash i would say "Top tier deck is the way to go" but it's not like this.

Why is that? Imo a good hate deck which fits well in the meta is stronger than a top tier deck.  If I survive to drop the hate cards. But which deck wins very fast? Flash with a broken hand and land,mox,Oath. Against these starts, maybe with counterbackup, you just lose. But keep in mind how often you REALLY get this kick-start hand when you are thinking now "Hey, if these top tier decks can gop off this easy, i would be dumb to play these hate decks!".

Which deck can manage to stop this brokeness? You have only FoW here, which fish is also playing.
If i manage to survive the first turns, the top tier deck has to find answers to my threats. He just can't win without pulling my answers out of the way.
Oath can't win with a Seal of Cleansing or a Meddling Mage on the table, Flash can't with a Leyline or a Meddling Mage on the table. Having casted one of these spells often means gg for the fish player. He has all the time in the world since he just has to attack and play a threat each turn.

Since the top tier decks normally have a way to win you can anticipate it is more like they are sweating when they play against hate decks than the hate deck fears the top tier deck.
This is just my impression. I tested each deck type from Oath, GAT, Stax, Fish, Flash, URPhid, TPS. In the end the funny thing happened: I felt umcomfortable WHILE playing the top tier decks because i knew the opponent brings in strong hate against my standard way to win. Decks like Staxy or Fish can keep their core and just add a few cards from the SB.
GAT vs prison has to transform the whole deck to have a chance to win. BTW: These transformational SBs, like Flash transforming into Oath, are a very good strategy for the top tier decks.

My main impressions are:

-top tier decks have central and very important cards. This makes them vulnerable since they can count on a broken hand and so normally have to tutor around for some time. These strong cards are their strength and their weakness
-a good hate deck wins more games vs a good top tier deck than it loses. Don't take this point too serious, it's just MY impression from testing each deck type
-the hate cards of the hate deck are kind of narrow. As Anusien wrote, StP, Grunt, Rod etc can be total crap against a top tier deck
-since the last point exists, hate decks have to play cards which can be applied very broadly. All top tier decks have the same strategies: Abusing Moxen, playing central cards (few win conditions), using the grave. Fish uses the strongest card against these, Stax uses cards which just shut off the opponent from his resources. The strategy of Stax is universally applyable against nearly each type of deck but the cards aren't as strong as Fish's against the opponent's strategy.

So: If you have a top tier meta, a tuned Stax ar Fish deck can manage to win lots of games here and i vote for the hate deck here.
If you are in a totally open metagame it is of course better to use a top tier deck since this one "just tried to win". But to be honest: Only top tier decks seem to be played and only top hate decks seem to be played so no one has to fear Elves or direct damage decks.

[hauntedechos]

Welcome once again to another of Haunted's, verbal array of opinions and thoughts, that are set before you for consideration and debate.

I thank everyone who has been reading and contributing to this thread.  It is by far my favorite so far.

I was pondering something that Everrid1234 had said "Since the top tier decks normally have a way to win you can anticipate it is more like they are sweating when they play against hate decks than the hate deck fears the top tier deck.".  I'm not sure I'm sold on this quote, not totally anyways. 

As the Fish player, I was really fearing my opponent just exploding in my face (questionable choice of words at best).  I had Force,  {U}card, Brainstorm, Null Rod, Flooded, Tundra and Duress, it's a fairly common hand, sometimes swapping the Rod with a random creature and it's something you keep and run with.  The problem here is, I have one hard counter, and a proactive counter (Duress).  Beyond that, I have a Brainstorm to fix my hand, and by the grace of *religious figure here* draw into something relevent to the match up.  Everytime I pass the turn I'm  thinking, Dark Ritual, Necro go  or ritual, ritual, Bargain, draw into Ritual, tutor, yawgs Will and win etc.  In short, it's the sheer speed of Tier one decks that scare me as the hate player.  Not always the speed at which they win, but the speed at which they manuver themselves into a game state where I cannot pull off a win.

As the Tier One player, I fear only a few hate cards and not all are played in the same deck, some, not even played in hate decks at all.  As a Combo player, I dislike chalice at one and zero and under the thumb of Chalice with thoes settings, I also dislike chalice set to two.  However, it's not very likely that a hate deck is going to be running chalice anyways.  I also dislike Orim's chant, Wasteland, Stifle, Meddling Mage etc.  Of all the ones listed just to the side here, I would have to say that I really dislike Wasteland and Stifle the most although Orim's chant on a Will turn is also a beating.  One card I absolutly cannot stand seeing is Extirpate.  Extirpate punishes you for playing anything relevent in your deck that isn't a one of.  The thing I sweat about most when playing against a hate deck is this: *Tundra, jet, Duress* "oh crap, I hope this Fish player isn't actually good"

So to sum it up:  As the hate player, I worry about the speed of the deck, while also considering it's resilience, as many Tier One decks can pull out wins even with less than proficient pilots.

                        As the Tier One player, I worry about the skill of the pilot I'm facing.  I know that there is only a limited number of answers and threats that are in the deck, however, how good is the pilot at administering them?

I think that there is a balance between the hate deck and tier one world.  As I stated before, I think it boils down to understanding what the burden is that you bare in a given match up.  Really this also ties in fairly heavily to knowing what your role is: Beatdown or Control.  For thoes who have not yet read that article, I highly reccomend you do, it might even put a new light on how you read this tread and others.

Haunted. 

[Zherbus]

I think the terminology is a bit misleading in this thread. When I think of hate decks, I think of a deck that's pretty bad in the abstract, but has cards specifically to screw with a certain strategy. Think of: TMWA with Burnout (bad against any non-blue spell) and Price of Progress (bad against most decks, especially Gush). Fish has been pretty borderline in terms of being labeled a hate deck. When we were talking about the Marc Perez builds of yesterday, it was a bit closer with some pretty awful creatures which is why it got murdered by a turn 1 Mishra's Workshop, or a creature bigger than a 3/3. The Dave Feinstein builds of today are a lot more robust. I mean, this is a deck that I could play in the oddest of metagames.

That said, the Fish archetype needs to be a reflection of the current metagame. Like it's older brother of metagame decks, Keeper, it just plain sucks when it's just virtually netdecked (no, changing your Duress count still means it's the same deck). You might look at Dave's most recent list, but the reality is his list pre-dates the Oath and Flash crazes. Dave is much more of an expert on the subject than I am, but I would imagine if he took a long look at the metagame he might be inclined to play with far different cards. Running the pre-dated list would certainly have you behind the curve on the Vintage metagame, and therefore you would fear the upper tier.

[hauntedechos]

I do agree that Fish requires a keen understanding of the metagame you are in and needs to be tuned accordingly.  I also agree that to net deck the winning Fienstien list would be terrible with where we are now.  I have talked to him recently, and it supports your statement, as his current list is NOTHING like that which he played in the Gifts metagame.

In terms of misleading terminology, I would have to say that while I have read many articles and try to keep my speech within thoes boundries, I'm sure that I'm not 100% on the money.  My understanding of a "hate deck" is one that has a core strategy and then selects cards that reflect the most optimal ways to hinder the metas popular strategies.  I would greatly welcome and appreciate clarification on this matter.  I mean no one likes to walk around talking like a fool when they actually think they are fairly accurate.

Haunted.

[AmbivalentDuck]

For me the problem with hate decks is twofold:
1)a) They attack with creatures for the win.  They have too many slots devoted to hating out other decks to do anything but.  This means that they are susceptible to being blown out by the other player.  It's like when Shop decks go for turn 1 Sphere, get it forced, and get blown out by combo or something similar.
1)b) They're slow.  Even when things go right for you, you're attacking in multiples of 2 or 3, which means you can get beat just by the other deck drawing out of it.
2) There are no wrong threats, only wrong answers.

In my meta, Doomsday is a hate deck.   I'm hating on my Bazaar based, aggro meta.  I pretty much ignore 'normal' anti-combo hate, and go off turn 2-3 against aggro shutting them off from the ability to use their full game plan.  I run hate cards: things like Engineered Explosives, Extirpate, and Ingot Chewer.  Aggro-control has few good responses to a 'pass the turn' Doomsday pile since there's nothing in your hand to Duress out and you run so many answers to Thorn/Sphere.

Lining it up with your points:
1a: Hate doesn't necessarily mean creatures.  Even when it does, it doesn't necessarily mean 'real' creatures.  Oath of Druids is a hate card that started comboing with Forbidden Orchard years after being printed.  I was playing it as a foil to Morphling and Hypnotic Specter (and later 'comboing' with Living Wish -> Sleeper Agent/Guilded Drake) long before Orchard even existed.  Now I'm playing Tendrils with an odd sort of topdeck tutoring strategy as a foil to a Duress meta.

1b: See above.

2:  Eater of Days, Lord of Tresserhorn, etc.  Right now, I'd even argue that Tinker->Colossus is a bad/weak threat in most reasonable modern metas.  Strong, general answers >> weak threats.  Which would you rather have in this meta: turn 1 Tinker -> Colossus or turn 1 Trinisphere?

[hauntedechos]

So in regards to Oath being used as a hate card, before the archtype.  What position does that put the Oath deck in then?  I've previously stated that I do not belive that Oath is a Hate deck and currently I am of the opinion that it is not.  Currently it is enjoying some time in the light, and this is largely due to the creature heavy meta we are in right now.  That shows that the creators have a keen eye for meta considerations.  If Oath is played in a meta that has virtually NO creatures used in one way or another, then Oath itself cannot impose nearly half the threat that it is now.  So does that mean that a "hate deck" is relative to the meta it is selected for?  Or that a "hate deck" is simply a deck that plays meta specific hate cards, wrapped around it's baseline strategy?  Or both?  I am personally of the camp that a "hate deck" must select and stick the "hate" cards to the field, each time the meta changes and as it changes.  What the creators of TSOath have done, is redifine the Oath build and at a time where Oath would be a great meta consideration.  I belive this exemplifies Oath as a great meta deck right now.

In concerns to Doomsday as a "hatedeck"  are you sure that you are not in the camp of Meta deck?  I'm not saying that you are or are not, I'm just curious as to what your evaluation of "hating on your Bazaar based, aggro meta" was defined by.  I'm also on the fence about it, as I'm not terribly well versed with the deck.  I've read on it and how it works, but to my understanding it is simply a combo deck, I'm unsure as to where the idea of hate comes into play with a combo deck.

Haunted.

 

[AmbivalentDuck]

So in regards to Oath being used as a hate card, before the archtype.  What position does that put the Oath deck in then?  I've previously stated that I do not belive that Oath is a Hate deck and currently I am of the opinion that it is not.  Currently it is enjoying some time in the light, and this is largely due to the creature heavy meta we are in right now.  That shows that the creators have a keen eye for meta considerations.  If Oath is played in a meta that has virtually NO creatures used in one way or another, then Oath itself cannot impose nearly half the threat that it is now.  So does that mean that a "hate deck" is relative to the meta it is selected for?  Or that a "hate deck" is simply a deck that plays meta specific hate cards, wrapped around it's baseline strategy?  Or both?  I am personally of the camp that a "hate deck" must select and stick the "hate" cards to the field, each time the meta changes and as it changes.  What the creators of TSOath have done, is redifine the Oath build and at a time where Oath would be a great meta consideration.  I belive this exemplifies Oath as a great meta deck right now.

Long before Orchard, Oath was fundamentally anti-creature tech.  Otherwise 'normal' control decks ran 2 copies of Oath as an answer to the Sui, Sligh, and Stompy builds of the day.  Rather than Oath -> Win, people would actually Oath into things like Shard Phoenix and Spike Feeder to slow the game down.  Maher Oath in extended was fundamentally a list a of silver bullets with 4x Enlightened Tutor to find them.  In that way, its 'Type 1' counterparts were little different from either the extended lists or the 5C control that was 'dominant' at the time.

In concerns to Doomsday as a "hatedeck"  are you sure that you are not in the camp of Meta deck?  I'm not saying that you are or are not, I'm just curious as to what your evaluation of "hating on your Bazaar based, aggro meta" was defined by.  I'm also on the fence about it, as I'm not terribly well versed with the deck.  I've read on it and how it works, but to my understanding it is simply a combo deck, I'm unsure as to where the idea of hate comes into play with a combo deck.

Maybe I'm defining hate differently.  I think that a hate deck is a deck whose strategy revolves around resolving hate cards.  And I think hate cards are pretty much anything used to poke at the weak spots of the dominant decks of the format.  In my mind, Duress is just as much a hate card as Leyline of the Void.  If your gameplan revolves around resolving Duress, Force of Will, Leyline, Extirpate, etc, you're probably running a hate deck.  Compare Duress in Gro to Duress in Fish.

The entire idea behind Doomsday is that you have a topdeck tutor that sets up a 5 card win using things that are already useful (fast mana, Ancestral, Will, storm, etc) and all you need to do is either cast a draw spell or pass the turn into the top card of the pile.  In practice, that means you can win pretty much any time you feel like it, but ONLY if your opponent can't do anything about it.  So, you want to interact as much as possible before you very suddenly and non-interactively win.  Rather than going off before the details of your opponent's hate matter, you find a hate card for their hate.

The immediate counter-argument and need for clarification is Mana Drain.  Was Gifts/Slaver a hate deck?  It revolved around resolving Drain.  My argument for that is that Drain wasn't about interaction: it was about ignoring the details of the opponent's attempt to interact for a turn and then generating enough tempo to continue ignoring it either by smacking them with an 11/11, storming out, or turning their resources against them.

[hauntedechos]

I'm not disagreeing that the card Oath of Druids was used as a hate card back in the day.  I can see the logic behind that point of view.  What i was saying is, that once you build a deck around Oath of Druids, the "hate" aspect of the card is traded for a strategy.  If the point behind Maher's Oath list was a consideration of the meta at the time, then I belive that to be a meta game consideration when building.  In essence he is answering the current metagames threats with strategy supiriority, versus leaning solely on hate cards.

"I think that a hate deck is a deck whose strategy revolves around resolving hate cards"

I'd say that we are fairly close to the same point of view there.  Though I think that it is important to note that the hate cards themselves have been given carefull consideration and that they will be leaned on heavily as the deck has little chance of winning w/o them given any matchup.  Whether this ideal fits in with Doomsday I don't know as I've not been too well versed in the deck.  Though the way you describe it, sounds like it could be a possibility, again I'm not expert on this.

I don't think that I can agree with the comparison of Duress and Leyline of the void.  Duress will disrupt the hand, but will not shut it down or hate it, unless you have a way of casting Duress each turn.  leyline on the other hand is brought in specificly for decks that love thier yards for whatever the reason.  It's purpose is to shut access to the yard off and thusly hate it out.  While Duress is a proactive counterspell for all intents a purpose, leyline has a much more narrow use, and when used in that capacity, is highly effective.  Sure Fish plays Duress as do many other decks in the format, the difference is that the disruption of Duress in the hands of Fish is meant to be a starting point that will build with subsequent hate and disruption cards alike being played.  Duress in the builds of other upper tier decks, is used as a proactive approach to clear the way for thier own game plan to move ahead as much as to disrupt the opponents.  There are similarities in use, but it's the entire archtype of Fish that abuses the card differently I think.

Haunted.