[FREE Article] Meandeck Beats, Revised

[Smmenen]

There is no such thing as a 'hate' deck unless all decks are hate decks.

I disagree.  It's hard to describe 'pure,' minimally interactive combo like Belcher as hate.

Actually, it's very easy to do so.   

I don't have time to get sucked into this conversation but I will comprehensively and systematically address all points raised next week.  It will take a long amount of time to fully explocate my points

[smasher]

I don't have time to get sucked into this conversation but I will comprehensively and systematically address all points raised next week.  It will take a long amount of time to fully explocate my points

Fair enough, looking forward to the write up next weeks article.

[Harlequin]

Simply put: This deck is not a hate deck because it runs cards that are powerful.  Null Rod and Qasali Pridemage are not hate cards.  They are  amazing cards.  As are all the cards in this deck.    Null Rod is INSANELY powerful, in the Vintage context.  Of course there is a context, but people then lose sight of the fact that that context is constantly evolving and contingent.   

Consider REB.  Is REB a hate card or an objectively powerful card?   REB in RG beatz reinforces the view that it's a hate deck.  But REB in Painter reinforces the view that its a powerful card. 

That's my point: there are no 'hate’ cards, and no 'hate' decks.  We all know what we mean, but what we mean is wrong from an ontological perspective.  It's based upon flawed assumptions about Vintage -- shared though they may be.   

But consider the meta shift that occurred around the restriction of thirst for knowledge. 

Consider the "top" decks pre-thirst.  Drain-Tezz w/ Thirst.  Then compare that to today's top lists - which are primarily Drain-Tezz w/ Confidant (or AK).  Those decks overlap tremendously, so much that generally they fall under the same moniker of "Tezz" or more specifically "Tezz-Control."  Thirst restriction was a major event.  If there was a meta-ricktor-scale, it would have registered somewhere around 5 or 6.  Yet a deck like "Tezz-Control" only changed a few cards... they still ran rought 40 to 50 cards identically in the main deck.

Now look at, what I consider the BEST showcase for Null Rod and Quasali before thrists restriction: "Selkie Strike."  The effects of the Thirst restriction were so great that Selkie was more or less rendered unplayable.  IMO, the biggest structural upset was the role of Meddling Mage.  This caused a cascaded of fundamental changes in the deck, so much so, that in order to play the two cards you pointed out - you drop an entire color!  And end up playing GW.   At which point, you don't even run the Markee card anymore. 

Talking about Gush (and his accomplices in crime) that meta-rictor-scale measured like a 9 or 10.  Undeniably one of the biggest changes vintage has ever seen.  So saying something like "Yeah but Gush does render Drain unplayable" is like comparing a massive nature disaster to a summer shower.  I even address this in the post I made, when I talk about organic meta-changes vrs dramatic ones. 

So I agree that nothing is black and white "hate" or "not hate" - because every deck is somewhere on this elastic-inelastic continuum.  And nothing, not drain, not even lotus, is immune to meta-change.  But conceding that doesn't mean that there is no usefulness, especially colloquially, in using a word to describe a deck more sensitive to meta changes (in this case “hate”).  We do this all the time in language.  If we could only use words that had absolute binary certainty, we would have a lot fewer words.  "Hate deck" is one of those phases with a continuum meaning.  So you could say that “all decks are hate decks and all decks are not hate decks” at which point it now has no meaning and we have lost one way to express similarity and difference; or we could agree “that TMWA is a hate deck, and Tezz is not” and retain a useful measure for comparing two entities.  I don’t see the harm in the later.

[kuberr]

What you described for hate decks is simply another mode of deck construction, and describes Stax as much as it does Fish or Beats. 

This is dead on.  I think those of us using the the word hate would agree with this.  Do you prefer the term answer deck? reactive deck? 

Describing that mode of deck construction is exactly what I was trying to do.  I absolutely feel that these decks are all at a disadvantage, based on your framework and their relatively weaker ability to adapt.

Now that we are done debating what to call these decks, I hope, perhaps you could address the actual debate.

[Doomsday]

It seems very cut and dry to me so I must be missing something.  Null Rod doesn't do anything unless your opponent is using certain specific cards.  It elimates or reduces the usefulness of those cards, "hating" them out.  Moat is creature hate.  Null Rod is artifact hate.  Pridemage is hate.  The "powerful" cards on the other hand, do not require your opponent to be using specific cards to be effective, they are effective on their own, in a vacuum.

[nataz]

Isn't hate just a bad definition? I mean, the reason why decks seem to be called "hate" decks is that they prey on more popular decks, decks that are perceived to need more skill to play. Decks that are "real" vintage decks. I'm trying to remember back when I first started playing in 2001, and from what I can remember, "hate" decks were mostly underpowered fish decks, and maybe stax. No one would dare call a drain deck a "hate" deck since those were the decks that people were supposed to play.

I propose getting rid of the "hate deck" moniker all together. Really, isn't this all a function of interactivity? Decks that try to execute their own game plan vs. decks that try to stop other decks game plan? 
 

[Smmenen]

Just to clarify, in my original post I was clear that my point was not simply with the term, but with what it meant for our understanding of Vintage to use the term:

What do you all mean by 'hate' deck?

I'm sure I'm missing some large existing work where you break this out, but I don't see why everything has to be semanticized.

It's not that 'everything has to be 'semanticized.'   I don't think that's productive or worthwhile.    My question wasn't one of mere semantics (i.e. signification or arguing over something trivial or unimportant to the issue).   I was suggesting, obliquely, that the term is a misnomer, and worse, misleading, and not simply in what it says about the deck at issue, but what it means for our understanding of magic more generally.   Rather than state that, I was hoping that someone would see my point in their attempt to define the term.   Failing at Socrates, let me spell it out.

The part in bold is the most important part.   

I unpacked this a bit later:

First of all, all power is contextual.  Black Lotus is far from a top pick in an Alpha Rotissierie Draft and Yawgmoth's Will or Tinker are terrible in Sealed deck.   I dislike the term 'power,' for that reason, and much more.  It's not just that it has no 'definite' meaning, and is semantically problematic.  [Most important:]I think it's misleading simply because it suggests an epistemology, if not ontology, of Vintage that I believe is wrong.   And over time, people who play alot of Vintage make these associations, and then fail to appreciate the contingency of them. 

One change: rather than address this issue as a note in my article next week, I will make the focus of an essay in two weeks  'Til then. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

I propose getting rid of the "hate deck" moniker all together. Really, isn't this all a function of interactivity? Decks that try to execute their own game plan vs. decks that try to stop other decks game plan? 

I'd certainly support that, and I'm eager to see how Steve argues that something that loathes interaction as much as Belcher is somehow hate.

'Hate'-ness being dropped in favor of discussions of level of specificity of interactivity and degree of interactivity seems appropriate.

[Smmenen]

I propose getting rid of the "hate deck" moniker all together. Really, isn't this all a function of interactivity? Decks that try to execute their own game plan vs. decks that try to stop other decks game plan? 

I'd certainly support that, and I'm eager to see how Steve argues that something that loathes interaction as much as Belcher is somehow hate.

'Hate'-ness being dropped in favor of discussions of level of specificity of interactivity and degree of interactivity seems appropriate.

No, it's not this either.   Interactivity is another term I think is very problematic in this debate.   Read my article Understanding Magic, which I linked above, on why.

[TwOnEight_Magic]

Could you repost that link sir? I can't seem to find it (playing Where's Waldo, and I got bored ).

[Smmenen]

It's free:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/16896_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Understanding_Magic.html

[AmbivalentDuck]

I wish I hadn't read that.  But...here goes.  You're looking at this wrong.  You're looking at a system with high dimensionality and going, "Gasp, the components interact!"  Instead, you could use any number of tools to reduce the dimensionality of the system without much loss of generality and instead observe that Magic is a resource-limited game with only a few modes of interaction that are all closely tied to the game's underlying resource system.

You can project cards into the limited dimensionality space and if you create some cute (and tedious) transforms, probably even get cards into a function space where they interact in ways that submit to closed form analysis.

I don't want to sound too mean to saying this, but that article reads like a high school physics student simultaneously discovering hash brownies and functional analysis. You've discovered that you can step past reductionism and view Magic as a system.  Great.  Now understand that you can often project systems onto much simpler versions of themselves in order to understand them without actually losing much detail.  

Encountering a complex system, you can view its vast function space and go "Woooowwwwwwww."  They're understandably overwhelming when you don't have tools for dealing with them.  But, neural engineers (like myself) take complexity far greater than you can encounter in a fixed card pool with known function and known rules and make sense of it every day.  Brains have hundreds of billions of unique interacting parts and their characteristics are mostly unknown and perhaps unknowable (in the complete, time-varying transfer function sense).  Compare this to Magic's <12000 cards with printed rules text.

I totally need to finish the article I started on vintage decks.  It turns out that they submit wonderfully to Principle Component Analysis.  Despite our vast card pool, vintage decks reduce fairly neatly to a tree-like diagram.  I wouldn't be surprised if vintage *games* do too.  You can probably map choices into a fairly small resource space.

In the meanwhile, it's safe to assume that when we find language that usefully describes some aspect of the game, it's because we've stumbled on a component of the game that we could later analytically show is present.  The recurrent use (and debate over) the word 'hate' probably means that it's close to describing a key functional element of the game.

I'm not trying to go "Look, I can use big words, I'm awesome!"  I'm trying to communicate that there's a toolbox for dealing with complexity that you obviously haven't run into.  If decks fall into clean-ish categories, there's almost certainly an underlying cost function with local minima, whether we know it analytically or not.  Complexity in no way prevents analysis, it just makes it more difficult and requires more sophisticated tools.

[Troy_Costisick]

So I agree that nothing is black and white "hate" or "not hate" - because every deck is somewhere on this elastic-inelastic continuum.  And nothing, not drain, not even lotus, is immune to meta-change.  But conceding that doesn't mean that there is no usefulness, especially colloquially, in using a word to describe a deck more sensitive to meta changes (in this case “hate”).  We do this all the time in language.

You make a good point, but I regard the labeling of decks in the conventions that we use sometimes to be a bad thing (and I know we're starting to get up against some forum rules, so if we have to take this to the advanced forum, I'm cool with that).  I don't even think "hate deck" is necessarily the worst offender.  To me, it's "Fish deck."  When I saw people labeling the GW budget deck as GW fish or labeling a deck featuring Goyf, Confidant, and Magus of the Moon as a BRG Fish deck or (ugh) talking about "fishless fish", I get a little annoyed.  "Fish" as a colloquial term has lost almost all its meaning.  It basically means "creature" now, but doesn't help the reader know much about the deck- especially when listed as a general archetype. 

This is the path I fear we will tread down if "hate deck" keeps getting applied as liberally as it is now.  Will Suicide Black w/ Null Rod, Cruel Edict, and Duress  labeled as a "hate deck" now?  Will Gob-Lines featuring main deck LotV and Earwig Squad be labeled as a hate deck?  Rack and Ruin, Darkblast, Hurkyl's Recall, and Fire//Ice are all commonly labeled as hate cards.  So are Red Elemental Blast, Null Rod, and Seal of Primordium.  But why is one deck stigmatized for choosing one suite of "hate" over another?  Both decks play cards that target specific archetypes played in the metagame.  What's the real difference as far as the interactions go?  It's just different card fufilling similar roles in dis-similar decks.

Peace,

-Troy

[Harlequin]

But at the other extreme, if we take away any label or concept that has a "shade of grey" meaning... then every post, artical, or debate will be refined to a point of saying that "All vintage decks are decks. End of discussion."  

At the end of the day, its easier to say "I played against Tezz"  
Or ask "How does your deck deal with hate?"  Rather than trying to needing to attach 1000 word dissertations and definitions to qualify the words you use.  

The point of communication is simply that you "get" what I want you to "get."  And while phrases like "Hate Deck" or "Hate card" don't need hard-line definitions for us to go to Chillies after a turnement, have a burger, and talk about Magical Cards.  And when I take a bite, and say "Damn... I really got hated out today... can you help me think of cards that will help me dodge hate?" - you at least have a gist of what I'm saying.  If your response is "Every card in magic is a hate card, and ever deck is a hate deck" then there is no point in talking to you.

[AmbivalentDuck]

At the end of the day, its easier to say "I played against Tezz" 
Or ask "How does your deck deal with hate?"  Rather than trying to needing to attach 1000 word dissertations and definitions to qualify the words you use.

And that has some meaning 'under the hood.'  The Tezz core and counterstrategies are principle components of the vintage meta.  It turns out that when we use names like 'Tez' and 'Fish,' even when they're historical artifacts and no longer appropriate, they tend to describe very real swaths of vintage deckbuilding.

[Harlequin]

... And in-lies the beauty of language.  

EDIT: Added a Rant  -

Let’s not focus on "hate" or Magic and just look at the word: Penitentiary.  This word originally is the place where the Sacrament of Penitence was delivered.   As our outlook on punishment changed throughout our history, sending a person to Penitentiary basically was a really cruel form of forced prayer and solitary confinement (as an alternative punishment to public humiliation).  But strictly speaking, it’s a place where religious (catholic) forgiveness occurs.   
Every day when I go to work, I have to wear proper business attire.   I’m not “free” to do whatever I want, as I am bound by the mores of social interaction, and the rules of business-professional etiquette.  Used loosely, I could describe my office as a Penitentiary; and this would be valid in some contexts. 

However, If I were to say to a group of people “Hey, did you hear Bill got sent to a Penitentiary!”  There would be few people who pictured Bill either going a religious service, and few who thought I was talking about Bill going to work in an office.   I’d be doing that audience a disservice in telling my story with either the too narrow, or too lose definition of the word. 
Does this mean that we should all never EVER use the word Penitentiary for anything?  If it does, then we’ve got a hell of a lot of clean up to do…

[Smmenen]

This is not about semantics.  This is not just about whether the term "hate" is appropriate or not.   

Otherwise I would have framed and addressed the issue in those terms.    Rather, the term is an expression of a particular set of assumptions (I called it a worldview) that I believe is, point by point, flawed, if not wrog.   

The term is not as problematic as the assumptions that it expresses, which I tried to unpack in my first big post in this thread.   The worldview that it expresses has already carved the field/metagame into two domains: the 'dominant/most powerful' decks and the 'hate' decks, and has already made all kinds of judgments about those two categories, which I think is just wrong. 

I have a few spare minutes at the moment:

There is no such thing as a 'hate' deck unless all decks are hate decks.

I disagree.  It's hard to describe 'pure,' minimally interactive combo like Belcher as hate.

Actually, it's very easy to do so.   

The reason that's easy that the *decision* to play Belcher could easily be described as engaging in metagame arbitrage.   That is, the pilot sees a metagame game, and a spot to 'hate out' the field with Belcher.   Just as any configuration of Keeper or particular configuration of Fish cards could be understood as metagaming. 

What you described for hate decks is simply another mode of deck construction, and describes Stax as much as it does Fish or Beats.

This is dead on.  I think those of us using the the word hate would agree with this.  Do you prefer the term answer deck? reactive deck? 

I don't prefer any of these terms. 

I love talking about the card Trinisphere.    It's perhaps one of my favorite pedagogical tropes in these conversations. 

1) Is Trinisphere a powerful card?

2) Is Trinisphere a hate card?

3) Is Trinisphere interactive?

4) Is Trinisphere reactive or proactive?  Defensive or offensive?   

5) Is Trinisphere an 'answer' card?  What if its in Uba Stax, which you described as a 'hate' deck, or the mode you listed as:

Hate Deck:
1) limit my opponents options
2) resolve some threats
3) race
4) win?

Mike Flores wrote an article on Interactivity.  http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/8895.html

He talked about how in the combo era, Sphere of Resistance allowed interactivity.  I asked Flores if he felt that Trinisphere was also an interactive card.   Just a few months prior, the DCI restricted Trinisphere because it was called 'non-interactive.'   

How could it be both?   

What's interesting about Trinisphere is that it's interactivity is so powerful that it actually leads to non-interactivity.   What we discover is that interactivity slips into non-interactivity and vice-versa.  They are distinct domains, but they bleed, and badly so.   

Describing that mode of deck construction is exactly what I was trying to do.  I absolutely feel that these decks are all at a disadvantage, based on your framework and their relatively weaker ability to adapt.

Now that we are done debating what to call these decks, I hope, perhaps you could address the actual debate.

To me, the actual debate is the assumptions that underlie the question, that I talked about in my first post.   

[Stormanimagus]

I figured I'd chime in on this issue as a recent inductee into the Fish-playing community. Here's where the issue in terms is as I see it:

First off, Vintage is the most powerful format of Magic that allows access to the most broken cards. This means that answers to those cards must be efficient and oftentimes narrow. Cards like Null Rod are pretty poor in any other format. There is no objective power to Null Rod outside the context of Vintage.

One could argue even that Force Of Will loses a lot of objective power in a format where blue does not dominate and turn 1-2 kills cannot be achieved. FoW needs a specific shell to function well and to earn the title of 'the glue of Vintage' that it holds today.

Cards Brainstorm might not even be good in a format that didn't have the kind of bombs that Vintage does nor access to easy shuffle effects like Fetches.

I could go on and on with card after card to illustrate this point but I won't. My point is that, while Stephen is correct that all of Vintage labeling of decks must first take into account that every card is a form of 'hate' or rather 'response' to another there is still the matter of those cards that win games. What it really comes down to is those cards that win games!

Given the restricted list of Vintage I think it is pretty clear that there are some cards that will NEVER come off it. Moxen, Lotus, Ancestral, Tinker, Yawg Will, Time Walk, etc. Now of that list there are certain cards that have wider applications as a bomb than others. Some might say that Yawg Will and Tinker currently fill the role of 'most broken' enablers for victory in Vintage. This is not to say that there are not other engines. Ichorid proved this to be true by abusing a card that saw only moderate play before in Dragon Combo: Bazaar Of Baghdad. Before it was restricted Gush and Flash Players proved the engine power of the Merchant Scroll in achieving some of the most busted turns imaginable and oftentimes not needing the assistance of Yawg Will.

So what's my point. My point is that Fish/Beats decks are evolving but they still come up a bit short. Since they are forced too often to run cards that nearly dead in certain match-ups in order to fight decks like Tezz they have a difficult time fighting through random.dec en route to a Top 8. And THEN, even if they DO make the top 8 they have to beat a deck that has the potential to win through tutors and anit-hate cards so a victory is not a guarantee.

This actually happened to me a recent tournament when I was piloting GWb Meandeck Beats. I faced a new-to-vintage player who didn't understand the format and was piloting a phantom deck. You heard me correctly. . . A MUTHER-LOVIN' PHANTOM DECK! I lost game 1 and would have lost the match if it hadn't been for the power of my SB STP and Jitte. This is why GWb Meandeck beats has not earned the confidence of the top players. It loses to random Junk and that is no fun. Think about the slots in the deck that do NOTHING vs. Goblins, for instance.

4 Null Rod
4 Gaddock Teeg
4 Mindcensor (though they do stop the tutor guy)
2 Choke

And one could argue that Confidant is less good against a deck with quick blockers as well as Tarmogoyf.

And what about a well designed Phantom Deck?

I think this phantom deck story illustrates my point perfectly. TPS doesn't lose to that deck. Tezz doesn't lose to that deck. Highlander.dec with a quick and difficult to stop kill condition DOESN'T lose to that deck. Fish/Beats can lose to that deck. That is why I call Tezz/TPS etc., the core good decks in Vintage and Fish/Beats are more of a 'hate' deck.

Now, is there hope for Fish/Beats to shed this role and ACTUALLY become objectively powerful across the board. I think they are close. The Exalted Mechanic is extremely powerful across the board and cards like Qasali-Pridemage actually can be good against random.dec. The "hate" that exists today for Fish is far more all-effective and "drain-esque" than ever before because it hits more and more stuff at the same time and has more than one purpose at the same time.

Vinny Forino said it best to me at a recent tournament. He said "I begged Wizards to print a Seal Of Primordium with legs and 'boom!' They gave me Qasali Pridemage." Wizards needs to answer the prayers of Fish even more with more multiple purpose gems like Noble Hierarch, Cold-Eyed Selkie, and Qasali Pridemage.

I'm still of the opinion that Selkie-Strike is the closest thing we have to an objectively powerful non-ichorid creature deck, but we still have a ways to go. All I can say is I want my creatures BIGGER, BADDER AND BETTER! C'mon Wizards!

-Storm

[honestabe]

I guess it depends on your definition of hate.

I consider hate any card that you play in order to specifically beat a certain deck or card.

With this definition, null rod would not be hate, as it is used to fend off a variety of decks, while a card such as arcane laboratory is hate, as it is really only usefull against storm decks.

[smasher]

If hate decks are not descriptive enough to what the gist of the deck is then do we need to abolish the term combo deck? Far too many combo's exist in multiple colors to simply call a deck combo then expect people to understand the deck. A hate deck is also a combination of cards designed to win. Hate decks are combo decks, combo decks are hate decks. I could go on with this comparison with all the commonly named decks and continue this circle dance.

Please address generalized aggro control strategies, combo strategies, aggro strategies, control strategies, and any other broad terms in your article. It seems they all go hand in hand since they are all 1 or 2 word simplified terms for deck strategies. I wouldn't mind seeing some new suggested terminology to call various deck strategies so discussion between decks match ups can be done easily.

[Neonico]

I guess it depends on your definition of hate.

I consider hate any card that you play in order to specifically beat a certain deck or card.

With this definition, null rod would not be hate, as it is used to fend off a variety of decks, while a card such as arcane laboratory is hate, as it is really only usefull against storm decks.

It's really simple to classify a card in the "hate card" category. There are 2 definitions in my opinion :
 - The first, you can classify a card as "hate card" when you ask yourself if you would play it if the archetypes of your metagame weren't the same. If the answer is no, it's a hate card. Exemple : Would fish players play Qasali if the main kill in vintage wasn't Vault/Key ? No. It's a hate card.
 - The second : A card that isn't a deck engine, but try to hose those engines, such as null rod.

About contextual power : No there is not only contextual power in MAgic.
LEt's look at all the decks played in the last 5 years.
Alot of them had non-contextual power (not sure about the term "Absolute" in this case) and if it wasn't true, why drain deck dominate since the restriction of trinisphere . Stax with 4 trinisphere was also a non-contextual powerfull deck. So was long. So was Gifts. So was GaT and flash. All those decks were the best decks of their metagame and the metagame was defined around them, and not the opposite.

Let's take some historical examples :
 - Gifts dominance : made ritual combo deck evolve from grim long to pitch long
 - Gush era : made some decks such as stacker viable
 - 4trini Stax : Lead to trinisphere restriction, because the metagame was unable to adapt to such a monster
 - Tezzeret dominance : Made decks like GWB/Noble fish viable

and so on. The power of a dominant deck isn't defined by the metagame, it's the metagame that evolves around those dominant decks.

[Stormanimagus]

 Exemple : Would fish players play Qasali if the main kill in vintage wasn't Vault/Key ? No. It's a hate card.
 

Would you play Mana Drain if all that was played was Ichorid? No. It's a hate card. See my point? It's not so much whether a card is a "hate" card persee, but rather, how much splash damage does it do beyond its primary target and can it also win you the game. I don't think Qasali would drop off the map if, for instance, Time-Vault was re-erata'd. Pridemage is still pretty damn nice against Oath, Stax and other randomness in Vintage as it has flexibility as a card. It can beat for 3 the turn after you play it, and that is also nothing to sneeze at. I think Pridemage is of a different breed than previous "hate" cards because its effect is wide-ranging and it can swing for damage, forcing the opponent to answer it in a certain given time.

I'm not saying that Pridemage is on the same power level of a card like Mana-Drain, but it has a similar feeling of over-arching defense + offense all rolled into one card. If wizards gave GW beats 1 more such card I could see it begin to take off even more than it is now. It would have to be a card that really gives game against Ichorid, while possibly providing some splash damage against any deck trying to abuse the yard, but it'd have to be Green or white. Hmmmm. . . *brainstorms*

Seton's Acolyte      

Creature— Centaur Druid Shaman

Exalted

Cards in graveyards lose all abilities and cannot be the target of spells or abilities.

2/1


But hey, I know they'll never print this little gem .

[AmbivalentDuck]

Edit:

Seton's Acolyte      

Creature— Centaur Druid Shaman

Exalted

Cards in graveyards lose all abilities and cannot be played.

0/3

Invulnerable to common hate and shuts down yawg will.

[Stormanimagus]

Edit:

Seton's Acolyte      

Creature— Centaur Druid Shaman

Exalted

Cards in graveyards lose all abilities and cannot be played.

0/3

Invulnerable to common hate and shuts down yawg will.

I mean, I'd love that card, but that might almost be TOO good. Still, if Wizards really wanted to send a message that they were trying to balance power in Vintage that'd be a good start. I made is a GG costing creature originally so it could not easily be splashed, but I suppose making it Green at all makes it a bit difficult for any deck running black to justify it. When you have Leyline, and Planar Void you may not need this dude.

I like the way you worded the card too. Very clever. Still allows for Welder Tricks, but does indeed shut down Yawg. Will. Since Fish/Beats decks already have a decent match-up against Stax I suppose it makes sense to not kick a dead horse and make it also hose Welder.

-Storm

[Grand Inquisitor]

@Steve, I've read your article (again) on understanding magic.  I think at least one of a few things could be going on:

1) You overestimate the difficulty of applying systems analysis (even intuitively) to these situations.  Re: I agree with Abivalent Duck.

2) Your statement here,

Rather, the term is an expression of a particular set of assumptions (I called it a worldview) that I believe is, point by point, flawed, if not wro(n)g.   

...makes the same reductionist error you decry in your article.

3) You're overthinking this.  Re: I agree with Harlequin...

then there is no point in talking to you

I found this comment in your article amusingly ironic:

If I can’t trust Alan Greenspan, our President, or Robert McNamara, why should we trust anyone to get anything perfect in a complex system?

Since you're our best public voice, let's hope it's not prophetic as well.

[Vegeta2711]

I love how this thread has absolutely nothing to do with winning games of Magic. 50 posts later and there's still not an iota of substance to help people.

The kicker? The original point of the thread was to talk about a very straight-forward aggro deck.

[Joblin Velder]

I love how this thread has absolutely nothing to do with winning games of Magic. 50 posts later and there's still not an iota of substance to help people.

The kicker? The original point of the thread was to talk about a very straight-forward aggro deck.

i lol'd.

[Smmenen]

Since I'm going to address the 'assumptions' and other metaphysics of Vintage in an article, I can answer some of the more practical questions raised directly:

The number one thing that decks like this have going against them is the lack of strong players dedicated to working on Null Rod decks (and budget decks as well).   The most experienced deck builders in Vintage tend not to work on decks like this, since as a function of their experience, they tend to own power and want to play with full power.   

I do not believe that these decks have to be a surprise to be viable, they simply must continue to evolve (as all decks must).   The notion that one deck can continue to evolve at a faster rate is mistaken, and is simply a function of energy and effort.    Also, the rate of evolution must always be tailored to actual metagame threats, not perceived.   It's possible to go too far and overshoot and overmetagame.    Since we tend to look at top 8 data, we only see the decks that aimed well, like the Gencon top 3.   

Also, the fact that Hiromichi could change just a few cards to make the matchup favorable does not mean the death knell for opposing decks.   In fact, this article illustrates that.  I changed 3 cards in my deck (maindeck) and the matchup swung a total 180, for the reasons articulated.    Also, the fact of tutors or inherent power does not mean an inherent advantage versus these decks.   In fact, the fact that they can abuse a lower proportion fo the restricted list means that they are, in some respects, inherently more flexible.   You have more of your deckspace that you can work with.    Big Blue decks have only 10 slots or so that they can play with, at most.   

[KBH]

Since I'm going to address the 'assumptions' and other metaphysics of Vintage in an article, I can answer some of the more practical questions raised directly:

The number one thing that decks like this have going against them is the lack of strong players dedicated to working on Null Rod decks (and budget decks as well).   The most experienced deck builders in Vintage tend not to work on decks like this, since as a function of their experience, they tend to own power and want to play with full power.   

I do not believe that these decks have to be a surprise to be viable, they simply must continue to evolve (as all decks must).   The notion that one deck can continue to evolve at a faster rate is mistaken, and is simply a function of energy and effort.    Also, the rate of evolution must always be tailored to actual metagame threats, not perceived.   It's possible to go too far and overshoot and overmetagame.    Since we tend to look at top 8 data, we only see the decks that aimed well, like the Gencon top 3.   

Also, the fact that Hiromichi could change just a few cards to make the matchup favorable does not mean the death knell for opposing decks.   In fact, this article illustrates that.  I changed 3 cards in my deck (maindeck) and the matchup swung a total 180, for the reasons articulated.    Also, the fact of tutors or inherent power does not mean an inherent advantage versus these decks.   In fact, the fact that they can abuse a lower proportion fo the restricted list means that they are, in some respects, inherently more flexible.   You have more of your deckspace that you can work with.    Big Blue decks have only 10 slots or so that they can play with, at most.   

Steve, you're being ridiculous. There is no "metaphyiscs" of Vintage.  For the Greeks of antiquity "meta" did not mean beyond but "not".  So "not physics".  Only..everything is physics.  Hence, no metaphysics period. Your aggressiveness is getting in your way -- people are telling you, but you ain't hearing.  And when you spend 50 pages offering knowledge without wisdom, poeple are apt to get a little warm.

What you're missing is that you take things apart not to show what a mess you have but so that you can put it all back together again in a more intelligible form.  I don't think Ambivalent Duck and I quite again on the method in that I don't think a positive approach (as in positivist) actually tells you the most important information, but you ain't ready to debate him about this, Steve.

Then again, I read GW Hegel so what do I know..

[Smmenen]

How is that in any way responsive to what I just said?   And -I'm- ridiculous?  


EDIT:

Look, here's the problem.   There several parallel conversations that are being conflated (for example, there is a sematnic conversation about the use of the word 'hate', a discussion about 'power' (i.e. is Null Rod as powerful as Will) and powerful/dominant decks, and another discussion about interactivity, and redefining decks on a spectrum of interactivity or interactivity elasticity)  ontop of additional problems:

First, I do not have time to comprehensively address many of the claims being raised on these boards.  THis leads to things like my linking an article and then mistaken understanding of why I did so (see Ambivalent Duck and GI's response above).

I said I'd address these issues in an upcoming article, but every time I try to say something (without the time to lay it out), it is easily misconstrued or not fully understood.  Thus, my first post was misunderstood by about the first five people who were responsive.   That's how you get knowledge without wisdom.  

Secondly, many people apparently do not have premium.    So, many of the questions raised (for example, GI's first question), was answered in the conclusion section of my interview with Itou last week, when I talked about just that issue.  

As for Ambivalent Duck, take a look at this:

Steve is questioning the assumptions that he spelled out.  He's asking questions that have been a long time coming like:

1) Is Null Rod as 'powerful' as Yawg Will?  Ie. You just resolved/drew it, what are the odds that you will now win?

2) Is the 'dominant deck' of the day is actually the most abstractly powerful as opposed to the most played by 'good' players?

3) Does hate somehow necessarily imply underpowered cards?  Stax is arguably hate, search Vroman's posts for Uba's bad matchup against Kamigawa era type II rats.  Does that somehow make it underpowered?

4) Does hate actually struggle or do hate players' refinements (that can look like archetype changes) constitute metagaming?  Or is it just that every hater has a different list and there's less "netdecking?"

5) The 'dominant' deck tends to run as much tutoring as the format will allow.  Does the ability to tutor for single-slot silver bullets make the deck, in fact, superior?  Is there really a fundamental difference between switching a maindeck Tormod's Crypt for a maindeck Fire/Ice vs swapping out 3 Selkie for 3 Gaddock Teeg?

He seems to be 100% in accord with my initial points, which he calls long-overdue.

Then, when I finally try to steer this thread in a constructive direction again, your post takes us back in the wrong direction.    

Just so I do not create any more confusion, I will not be posting in this thread again.   However, I will respond to all comments raised/made in my article in two weeks.