[FREE Article] Meandeck Beats, Revised

[Smmenen]

Article is here: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17949_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Meandeck_Beats_Revised_Running_Through_the_Champs_Gauntlet.html

Editor's Blurb:

Monday, August 31st - In today’s edition of So Many Insane Plays, Stephen Menendian’s takes his current deck of choice - Meandeck Beats – and throws it against Vintage Champion Hiromichi Itou’s tournament-winning deck. He notates the games as he goes, and tweaks his build each time…

For reference, the original thread on MD Beats is here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=38567.0

Enjoy!!

[Neonico]

Very interesting article.

I think that you did an really interesting anaylisis of how it's important to allways tune a hate deck considering how the deck you wanna hate evolve.

That said, i tend to think that It's an unwinnable war for the hate decks, simply because, as Hiromichi proved it to the vintage champs, the Dominant deck evolves to fight hate decks better as soon as people tune them too. I think that's quite easy to build a new tezz list, tuning the few slots we can tune, to beat your new verison of hate deck.

Mainly, fearing a big Noble Fish big showing, alot of people before Hiromichi allready added confidant to their lists, and some answers to rod and Hate creature, such as darkblast, Vendilion CLique (making a good showing in the french metagame) Fire/Ice and so on... (tarmogoyf sideboard for the /g versions). I tend to think that Hiromichi pushed this to a really high level i wouldn't do it in any metagame other than big non proxy tournament, but it's important to note that people playing each metagame pillar decks have to make their decks evolve.

To illustrate my point of view, here is a team work on how we tuned Tezzeret list to handle a mostly Noble Fish metagame we actually know in France :
        1 Library of Alexandria
        1 Tolarian Academy
        2 Flooded Strand
        2 Island
        2 Snow-Covered Island
        2 Tropical Island
        3 Polluted Delta
        3 Underground Sea
        1 Darksteel Colossus
        1 Vendilion Clique
        4 Dark Confidant
        1 Tezzeret the Seeker
        1 Black Lotus
        1 Mana Crypt
        1 Mox Emerald
        1 Mox Jet
        1 Mox Pearl
        1 Mox Ruby
        1 Mox Sapphire
        1 Sensei's Divining Top
        1 Sol Ring
        1 Time Vault
        1 Voltaic Key
        1 Ancestral Recall
        1 Brainstorm
        1 Darkblast
        1 Echoing Truth
        1 Fact or Fiction
        1 Gifts Ungiven
        1 Mystical Tutor
        1 Rebuild
        1 Thirst for Knowledge
        1 Vampiric Tutor
        2 Spell Snare
        4 Force of Will
        4 Mana Drain
        1 Demonic Tutor
        1 Merchant Scroll
        1 Ponder
        1 Regrowth
        1 Time Walk
        1 Tinker
        1 Yawgmoth's Will
SB:  1 Relic of Progenitus
SB:  1 Energy Flux
SB:  1 Hurkyl's Recall
SB:  1 Misdirection
SB:  1 Tormod's Crypt
SB:  2 Thoughtseize
SB:  1 Rebuild
SB:  3 Yixlid Jailer
SB:  4 Tarmogoyf

All the metagame slots are filled with cards fighting Null Rod And/Or Creatures we don't want to have against us (2 spellsnare, Vendilion Clique, Darkblast, Hurkyl's Recall and Echoing Thruth)

As a side note, i totally agree with you that Hiromichi plays too much anti hate technology, and i would remove 2 or 3 of his anti hate cards for Gifts package and Ponder, which i can't consider playing tezzeret whithout.

Really impatioent to read the matchup analysis against Steel City Vault deck.

[voltron00x]

Excellent article.

I also can't imagine running a deck like Tezz w/o Gifts Ungiven.  I think the only times I've ever beaten a resolved Gifts Ungiven against Tezz were in games where I had the win onboard and Tezz played it mainphase and needed to win immediately; generally speaking though, an EOT Gifts Ungiven that resolves tends to win the game on the spot.  I can't think of a good reason to not include it.

Cutting Ponder, on the other hand, seems perfectly defensible.

[Gekoratel]

I also enjoyed this article because it showcased how integral it is to stay up to date with the metagame and the importance of testing.  It's great to see the evolution of a deck and how small changes can have big implications.  By adding Edicts to the main it will also help your matchup against other aggro/fish variants.  You were spot on when talking about how Itou's list of Tezz plays out versus more standard versions of Tezzeret.  I've been using his 75 in testing and the only MD slot that's been marginal is Magus of the Unseen and Itou even mentioned in your interview that he didn't use the card very often.  I can't really support removing FoF for Extirpate though since I think you start sacrificing to much of your draw engine which will weaken mirror matchup.

[Grand Inquisitor]

it's important to allways tune a hate deck considering how the deck you wanna hate evolve

it showcased how integral it is to stay up to date with the metagame

A point I would like to hear more from Steve (and others) on is this: do hate decks need to be a surprise?

Elaboration:

Hate decks typically forego the most powerful cards in the format in order to play 'hate' cards which would have collateral damage (e.g. null rod, chains of mephistopheles, thorn of amethyst).  These decks rely on tempo from mana denial and X-for-one advantage from these cards and things like aven mindcensor of gaddock teeg in order to overcome more powerful cards.  As soon as a targeted deck (Tez) either uses effective answers against the hate or a different angle of attack (e.g. the tinker plan, dark confidant, empty the warrens), the hate gambit fails to work.

My experience is that things like UR Fish, UW Fish, TMWA, Urbana, NobleFish, GW, etc. have experienced brief periods of metagame viability, but tend to suffer lapses comparable to ichorid when the right cards show up in the main or sideboard or top mana drian lists.  However, this doesn't take away from the fact that enterprising deck builders continue to come up with slight variations (NobleFish and the UWB list from day 2 at Chicago are good recent examples) that keep the cat and mouse going.

Does anyone want to weigh in on this dynamic or give examples of exceptions (i.e. long term fish viability)?

[Neonico]

If i don't pretend to answer instead of steve, i think that a hate deck, by definition, is only viable for a short time during which people all play/netdeck the same version of the dominant deck.

Then, the people who play the dominant deck and who tests/work on their list tend to include solutions to this hate and win again against their principal predator.

Then, hate deck have to change their hate or adapt their tunable slots. If they don't, they can't keep on winning, and it's also true for the dominant decks that just netdeck and don't work on their list, or any vintage deck that is out of the metagame.

The most interesting example of this is how noble fish (i speack for my era) doesn't perform as well as it did during BoM for example, just because tezz players adapted their maindeck. Also, the fact that remora allmost disapeared of the metagame changed alot the way that hate decks have to operate.

But, if this aspect is important for any deck in the format, it's just fondamental for a hate deck. They include more creature hate ? Include more locking artefacts. They deal better with boring artefacts ? Play more aggressive creature/Hate creatures, and so on.

Remember that a hate deck is often viable/good, just because people tend to just netdeck the most dominant deck without testing/tuning

[Smmenen]

What do you all mean by 'hate' deck?   

[wiley]

In reference to tez having a huge boon from darkblast, did you ever try siding in planar voids?  I have no idea how well it would work, but at least that way he has to draw into multiple creature kill instead of just reusing the lone db.

[smasher]

What do you all mean by 'hate' deck?   

Not to speak for others using the term but I understand this "hate deck" as being any deck designed to combat or hate on the top tier strategies expected to show up in the top tables and top 8's.

[Stormanimagus]

@Neonico- Ahh. So the secret's out. Noble Fish is finally being metagamed against? Well, this is a problem. Noble Fish should be designed to give Tezz absolute headaches, but Darkblast is a very difficult card to beat. I don't think bounce for Null Rod is that big a deal for Noble Fish, cause then you just need to protect yourself with Counters for 1 turn, and often you can get far enough ahead on CA with Selkie to have those extra Force/Dazes.

I'd like to know what people think Selkie-Strike can do to adapt.

-Storm

Edit: After reading some more posts I'd like to Draw a distinction between Noble Fish and other Fish variants.

See, I designed the deck to not really have to be tuned too much over time (other than the SB and a couple MD Slots) Noble Fish is designed to be effective against the Top Strategies pretty much all the time. Now I realize that Darkblast is gonna make things a bit more tough, but there will always be a Darkblast (metaphorically) out there ruining your day. You simply have to stick to what your deck does best and try to find a creative way of combating it.

Noble-Fish seemed like a step up for the fish archetype because the deck is really REALLY consistent and effective. It is a mana-denial deck: plain and simple. It seeks to shut down the opponent's mana base while developing its own board and beating for lots of damage via the exalted mechanic. It is a deck that can often Tap out (or leave 1 mana up for Stifle) and not blink an eyelash because it runs 8 free Counters. I don't think people quite understand the incredible synergy of Noble/Daze. Yes the deck's innovation is Noble + Selkie, but Noble/Daze is the real crux of this deck. Noble simply enables the deck to play out its spells while it still matters while not wasting a slot for pump and offense. Beating down with a single Noble on the board is not irrelevant when you are in top-deck mode. That's 1 point closer to victory, and when the average opponent deals themselves 3-5 damage over the course of a game that extra point a turn is 1/17 - 1/15 of their remaining life total. With Double Noble out you have a bear beating down every turn.

Noble Fish struggles because it does have glaring weaknesses. It should have trouble with Oath and Ichorid and both are played in decent numbers at tournaments. MM and Pridemage do help the Oath Match-up, but it still has the problem Fish decks have always had. Oath doesn't need to tutor up Forbidden ever and thus can focus all its energies on protecting Oath. STP from the SB helps a lot, but I'm not confident that that match-up will ever be in Selkie's Favor.

TPS is another tough one. It is a little easier to feel like you are in that match, but it is still a -%.

Having 3 really tough match-ups is the main Reason Noble-Fish is not the first Tier-1 Fish deck.

[Grand Inquisitor]

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.  Everyone else in the thread seems to have a good idea what a hate deck is.  If you have a spectrum/framework for interfacing this group of decks at least post something constructive and spell it out instead of just a blanket question.

I gave a pretty easy summary above:

Hate decks typically forego the most powerful cards in the format in order to play 'hate' cards which would have collateral damage (e.g. null rod, chains of mephistopheles, thorn of amethyst).  These decks rely on tempo from mana denial and X-for-one advantage from these cards and things like aven mindcensor of gaddock teeg in order to overcome more powerful cards.

[Smmenen]

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.

Consider the questions raised:

With so much time between big tournaments and seemingly constant innovation amongst the top decks, are Fish decks in vintage doomed to always be behind the curve by one tournament?

Maybe I'm way off, but I'm curious what everyone thinks about the fact that Fish decks appear to be at a competitive disadvantage vs the decks they are trying to beat.

That said, i tend to think that It's an unwinnable war for the hate decks, simply because, as Hiromichi proved it to the vintage champs, the Dominant deck evolves to fight hate decks better as soon as people tune them too. I think that's quite easy to build a new tezz list, tuning the few slots we can tune, to beat your new verison of hate deck.

it's important to allways tune a hate deck considering how the deck you wanna hate evolve

it showcased how integral it is to stay up to date with the metagame

A point I would like to hear more from Steve (and others) on is this: do hate decks need to be a surprise?

The problem isn't with these questions, it's with the collective premises that underpin these questions.

Let me spell them out:

1) There are decks in the metagame that are composed of the most powerful cards.   These cards tend to be blue, artifact, and black.

2) These cards are positioned together generally as the dominant deck.   This is often: 4 Mana Drain + 4 Force of Will + restricted cards.   Gifts, Tezzeret, Control Slaver, etc.

3) Then, there sometimes arise decks that 'hate' on these decks.   They position themselves to beat the best decks.  

4) These 'hate' decks are often composed of underpowered cards.  

5) They struggle in the field for a variety of reasons, one of which is that they may not hit their intended targets, and thus fail to make top 8 or hit a 'losers bracket' before they can hit their prey.

6) Even then, the more 'powerful' deck often has more design flexibility and options, and therefore has a strategically advantageous position.   It only needs to adjust a few cards and therefore can 'out maneuver' the hate niche, and trump it.  

There are more components to this worldview that I need not list out -- you get the idea.

It makes perfect sense, in light of this, how these questions emerge.

My contention is that these premises are wrong, if not in total, then in large part.

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.  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.  

Secondly, all decks are metagame decks.   All decks position themselves in the metagame to adjust to other decks.   That's the nature of the competitive dynamic of Magic.   Null Rod decks are no more metagamed than TPS or Tezzeret.   It's not just that the decks themselves are metagamed, but the choice to run them is also a metagame decision.    Thus, while TPS is less flexible than some other decks in terms of what can be shuffled around in the maindeck, that doesn't mean that it isn't a metagame deck.   The choice to run it expresses an expectation about the metagame.  

It's only over time that we lose sight of this fact.   We see Keeper, Gifts, Control Slaver, Tez, or whatever, perform so well for so long that we lose sight of the original function of it.   Keeper was intended to be a metagame deck, of 5c of the best answers in the format.  

Third, all decks are constantly evolving as a result of the point just stated.   The idea that one deck is constantly evolving while another is static is just silly.  

The degree to which 'hate' decks have to evolve or be a 'surprise' is no more than any other deck, including Itou's Tezzeret, which deviated, subtly, from the traditional path in the ways I described in this article.    

Thus, the questions pose a false assymetry between "Tezzeret" (let's say) and "hate" decks.  

As a practical matter, it's simply untrue that big blue, heavy restricted list decks are always ahead of the Null Rod decks.   That is a question of effort, intelligence, and energy behind them.    If there are 40 great players working on Tezzeret and 2-3 great players working on Null Rod decks, it's predictable what the result will be.

In that sense, I don't think it's any more true of "null rod' decks than the big blue Drain restricted list decks that they need to be more of a 'surprise' to win.  The need for surprise is true of all decks, otherwise they wouldn't have their competitive advantage.  If they didn't deviate from other's expectations, then they wouldn't win in the way that a person hopes.    For example, if Itou's adjustments were foreseen by his competitors, then, they in turn could have made adjustments and beat him.   That's the nature of the competitive system.   As an economist, GI, I'm sure you appreciate this fact.   Entrepreneures engage in some enterprise hoping to make some profit, but the fact of their profit lures competitors in and, overtime, their expectations were dashed.  In order to stay ahead, they must continually evolve.  Same is true in Magic.  

Language is important beyond the things it signifies.   Here, these terms implied certain normative commitments about the reality of Vintage.   Thus, the fact that we all 'understood what we meant' was not enough.    The fact of the matter is that Magic has a long history of using certain terms, no less Vintage, and those terms are bad not simply becuase they are imprecise or indefinite, but because they contain within them certain assumptions that are also problematic.   That is the case here.

[Neonico]

@Neonico- Ahh. So the secret's out. Noble Fish is finally being metagamed against? Well, this is a problem. Noble Fish should be designed to give Tezz absolute headaches, but Darkblast is a very difficult card to beat. I don't think bounce for Null Rod is that big a deal for Noble Fish, cause then you just need to protect yourself with Counters for 1 turn, and often you can get far enough ahead on CA with Selkie to have those extra Force/Dazes.

I'd like to know what people think Selkie-Strike can do to adapt.

-Storm

Is it ironic ?  
I test darkblast and dark confidant in Tezzeret build since my "good but not enough" result in Bazaar of Moxen, in May 2009.

But in fact, the inclusion of darkblast has been decided lately (July) not only because it's huge against Noble fish. Spellsnare and vendillion clique did the job really well, and darkblast wasn't a key component of the anti-hate in our Tezzeret build. We decided to include it maindeck when every control player switch back from remora to confidant in our metagame, and gorilla shaman and goblin welder started to make a come back.

I'd like to know what people think Selkie-Strike can do to adapt.

I think it simply can't adapt, and take back its place in the metagame, as long as control decks have to maindeck Fire/Ice and darkblast to fight opposite confidant in control matchups, and welders and gorilla shaman. But i let thefish players answer the question, i'm simply not expert with the deck.

But whatever the reason to include darkblast is (selkie/Welder/Confidant/Shaman), it's just one more example of how dominant deck have to adapt, not only to the metagame itself, but also to the deck designed to beat it.

@Smennen : By hate deck, i mean any deck that isn't designed around one of the vintage main engine (What you call the "pillars" : ritual+tutors/draw7, Drain+draw/tutors, Shop+lock), but around tools to beat those engines. For me, null rod isn't apillar of the vintage metagame, simply because it's not an engine by itself.

EDIT : about your last post : i don't totally agree with this :
"First of all, all power is contextual."

And then this :  
"Secondly, all decks are metagame decks.   All decks position themselves in the metagame to adjust to other decks.   That's the nature of the competitive dynamic of Magic.   Null Rod decks are no more metagamed than TPS or Tezzeret.   It's not just that the decks themselves are metagamed, but the choice to run them is also a metagame decision.    Thus, while TPS is less flexible than some other decks in terms of what can be shuffled around in the maindeck, that doesn't mean that it isn't a metagame deck.   The choice to run it expresses an expectation about the metagame."

My point of view : When you play the best deck in the format, let's say actually tezzeret, it's because it has the biggest raw power of all actual vintage deck. It's the absolute most broken deck in the metagame actually. Running the best deck of the format (read : the best engine) isn't influenced by the metagame.

What is influenced by the metagame is the tuning of the list, not the choice of the engine. We all know that 55/60 cards are allmost identical in any list of the most dominant decks (exception perhaps for shop decks, whereyou have alot more choices but it's true for rituals and drain decks) and the 5last slots are often decided to fight thedecksweshould face the most in a metagame.

[smasher]

I don't see a problem with the term hate deck.

In the current metagame you are running the full powered blue decks with busted plays or playing a deck to combat that deck, aka hate deck. Of course other decks exist but they have their own names like dredge, stax, etc...

You wrote an article in your response on your view of "hate deck"

If you can respond with such a drawn out explanation of why or why not a deck is a hate deck then you as well have a good understanding what it is.

Perhaps you do not want your latest "meandeck beats" classified as a hate deck. When it comes down to it though more people would understand your deck concept if you told them you are playing a B/G/W hate deck than if you would tell them I'm playing meandeck beats. In fact related to in terms of colors being played plus the term hate deck I would guess someone following current vintage could tell you at least 75% of whats in the deck.

[Smmenen]

My belief isthat neither you nor neonico understood my post.   I'll try to explain in more detail -- and with more examples -- in my article next week.  I will quote neonico.

[Troy_Costisick]

My belief isthat neither you nor neonico understood my post.   I'll try to explain in more detail -- and with more examples -- in my article next week.  I will quote neonico.

It was a damn fine post and somewhat vindicating for a guy who like red and green in a format dominated by blue and black.  I always thought "hate decks" refered to decks people "hated" to play against because they're so well tuned to beat them.

[2nd_lawl]

This conversation has some very interesting questions lurking in the background:  

How useful is it to talk about "Tezzerret" or "drains" as a deck in itself when the article illustrates perfectly how a few small card choices (which are ancillary to the basic functioning of the deck) can drastically change a matchup?  I feel like this type of linguistic barrier underlines alot of the suspicious claims made about win% both on these forums and in articles.  

Is the 'pillar' or 'engine' framework still applicable or useful? where does SCV fit in? what about Stax w/null rod? Elves?  Oath without Drains? What about the "time vault vs. null rod" framework?  I think smmenen touched on a key point in understanding why decks like tez are "always good" while decks like dredge or any given variant of Fish are often only good for one tournament.  It seems like tez wins when nobody find the right "answer" deck for the days meta, as it has the default best strategy in the abstract(given the nature of counterspells as being good against both threats disruption and the brutal effectiveness of vault + key or tinker + robot[im trying to avoid using the word "power" here])
Maybe less attention should be given to "engines" and more to the 4-8 slots that are open in the major decks.

[2nd_lawl]

oops double post

[Neonico]

I don't pretend to be right or wrong there, but it's exactly what i said, not what steve said.

Yes pillars still exist : Drain, shop bazaar/Dredge and ritual...
Those are the only decks you can use the pillar term for.

Behind that, you have combo decks like Oath (non controlish versions) or SVC. We can consider that the ritual pillar should become the combo pillar to include them.

And after that, you have all the decks that try to fight those 3 strategies with hate cards.

The metagame is consistently shifting actually on this basis :

 - A deck really dominate the format, with a particular build alot of players play.
 - Hate deck start to be designed and win.
 - Dominant deck adapt their tunable slots to fight the hate without changing their main strategy.
 - Hate deck have to adapt their hate to make it more consistant against anti-hate cards
 - And repeat.

The key point is here, the third point, to clarify my position in the last post. A dominant deck like tezzeret is still playable and winning strategy, even facing alot of hate. The most comparable example i can name is dredge. Dredge players have to stop playing dredge when people anticipate it too much and hating it too much. As you allready shown it (and you disagreed with me about that, steve, I think that we got a real contradiction between what you said in your breakdown article and what you saying there) Tezzeret players still winning even when Noble fish, clearly designed to beat it, was on top. Where i don't agree is that i just consider Top8 penetration and you consider top2 penetration or tournament winning. Top8 penetration is the good benchmark for me, as it show a deck taht can at Worst X-1 the rounds.

The key difference here is for me the ABSOLUTE power, as opposite of contextual power you defended in your previous post. Dredge is strong for winning game 1, and easily win game 2 if people have no/few side. Tezzeret main engine is the ABSOLUTE most powerfull engine in the metagame actually, and tezzeret players have just to adapt 4 slots to fight better pre board the most anticipated strategy. If every one was actually playing GWB beats or noble fish, should we stop playing tezzeret ? I personnally would not stop playing it, just putt more spellsnares, darkblast, vendillion clique, perhaps smother maindeck, and i would still win, without changing the core of the deck which is :
4 confidant
All blue restrict
Black restrict
Key
Vault
Tezzeret
Tinker => robot
4 force of will
And let's say 3 mana drain (the 4th can be dissmissed in some particular matchups)

[kuberr]

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.

seriously?  I've seen this argument multiple times now, and it makes no sense at all to me.  We have a context, and its not Alpha Rotissierie Draft.  This is the 'Vintage Open Forum'.  I think its safe to assume that if someone mentions a powerful card in here, they are talking about within the context of the current metagame that the Vintage format is operating within.

Tinker, Will, Recall, Gifts, etc...  These are powerful cards within that context.  These are the cards that you'll see people say "I've never lost after casting x".

Sure Tezz is good within the current Metagame, but the Metagame would have to shift drastically for that to change.  The same is not true for Hate decks.  Take your G/W/B deck for example.  Itou changed a few cards, and by your own admission the matchup became horrible.  No one is claiming that Tezz is good independent of the metagame, but it's difficult to deny that it’s far more stable given small changes in the metagame.  I think of Tezz (insert current powerful restricted deck name here) as being highly inelastic, while Hate decks are highly elastic.  

I think this is mainly a function of their game plan.  Tezz is trying to win, and the Hate decks are trying to stop their opponent from winning (or at the very least slow them down), and then winning themselves.  If they have more card drawing, more tutors, answers to your hate, and counterspells then they have a considerable advantage.

I’m not saying that Hate decks aren’t good, and can’t win tournaments.  I simply think that they will always be at a disadvantage.  I have no idea who to attribute this quote to, but I think it says it all “Threats will always be better than answers”.

[Mr. Nightmare]

 I have no idea who to attribute this quote to, but I think it says it all “Threats will always be better than answers”.

Dave Price - "There are no wrong threats, only wrong answers."

[Smmenen]

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.

seriously?  I've seen this argument multiple times now, and it makes no sense at all to me.  We have a context, and its not Alpha Rotissierie Draft.  This is the 'Vintage Open Forum'.  I think its safe to assume that if someone mentions a powerful card in here, they are talking about within the context of the current metagame that the Vintage format is operating within.

Tinker, Will, Recall, Gifts, etc...  These are powerful cards within that context.  These are the cards that you'll see people say "I've never lost after casting x".

Sure Tezz is good within the current Metagame, but the Metagame would have to shift drastically for that to change.  The same is not true for Hate decks.  Take your G/W/B deck for example.  Itou changed a few cards, and by your own admission the matchup became horrible.  No one is claiming that Tezz is good independent of the metagame, but it's difficult to deny that it’s far more stable given small changes in the metagame.  I think of Tezz (insert current powerful restricted deck name here) as being highly inelastic, while Hate decks are highly elastic.  

I think this is mainly a function of their game plan.  Tezz is trying to win, and the Hate decks are trying to stop their opponent from winning (or at the very least slow them down), and then winning themselves.  If they have more card drawing, more tutors, answers to your hate, and counterspells then they have a considerable advantage.

I’m not saying that Hate decks aren’t good, and can’t win tournaments.  I simply think that they will always be at a disadvantage.  I have no idea who to attribute this quote to, but I think it says it all “Threats will always be better than answers”.

Of course we have a context, but that doesn't negate what I was saying.   If you read my long post in this thread more closely, I think you'll have a better understanding of my views.

I don't have the time to post another responsive explanation right now.  It took me over 30 minutes of my time just to type up my previous response, and I'm extremely busy at the moment.  Rather, as I said before, I will fully explicate and respond to all comments on this issue in my article next week.  

[Harlequin]

as being highly inelastic, while Hate decks are highly elastic

I actually REALLY like this criteria for the difference between a "top" deck (for lack of a better term) and a "hate" deck.   I think we can all agree that there is no definitive black and white characteristic that says "hate" or "not hate"... but the degree of sensitivity to change in the meta is a good starting point.  A deck designed to take advantage of a particular trend in a meta, will by design, be more sensitive to changes in the meta.  Where a deck designed to simply "be the best" or best utilize generic game advantages would be less susceptible to the same meta changes.  Or from the other angle, if you were to make changes to a "top" deck like Drain-Tezz to answer a typical metagame shift - you would likely make changes to 3-4 cards at the most.   A typical shift won't make Mana Drain suddenly unplayable, for example.  Where when a "hate" deck adjusts to the -same- typical metagame shift - it requires a more radical overhaul (and sometimes becomes a fundamentally different deck).

Also note that I'm talking about metagame shifts in the organic sense, where people see results from events and change thier decks/selections accordingly.  When the Ban/Restricted list changes dramatically, everything goes up in the air.  And we DO see things like Drain becomes unplayable, etc.   These changes shift the foundation of the metagame. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

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?

A typical shift won't make Mana Drain suddenly unplayable, for example.  Where when a "hate" deck adjusts to the -same- typical metagame shift - it requires a more radical overhaul (and sometimes becomes a fundamentally different deck).

Gush *did* push Drains out of the meta.  Drain itself is perhaps the format's most flexible hate card: no matter what *single* threat you play, it can counter it and deliver additional mana to fuel its own tempo.  It got pushed out of the meta when the threats became both trivial and innumerable.  "You counter my Gush...ok.  Merchant Scroll, Gush again.  Oops I win."  Drain stopped being effective hate and lost its spot as the best hate card to Sphere effects and Extirpate.

[Smmenen]

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?

A typical shift won't make Mana Drain suddenly unplayable, for example.  Where when a "hate" deck adjusts to the -same- typical metagame shift - it requires a more radical overhaul (and sometimes becomes a fundamentally different deck).

Gush *did* push Drains out of the meta.  Drain itself is perhaps the format's most flexible hate card: no matter what *single* threat you play, it can counter it and deliver additional mana to fuel its own tempo.  It got pushed out of the meta when the threats became both trivial and innumerable.  "You counter my Gush...ok.  Merchant Scroll, Gush again.  Oops I win."  Drain stopped being effective hate and lost its spot as the best hate card to Sphere effects and Extirpate.

Thank you.  Someone understood my post.

Just as a sneak preview of next week, compare Moat in Keeper and Null Rod today.

Moat in 1996 was a very poweful card, contextually.    Virtually all other decks tried to win with creatures.   Moat singlehandedly stopped that.    Today, virtually all decks win either with artifacts or via artifacts.    Null Rod is the Moat of today.  

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.  

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

[kuberr]

Of course we have a context, but that doesn't negate what I was saying.   If you read my long post in this thread more closely, I think you'll have a better understanding of my views.

I read your post, and I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what you are trying to say.

The 'power' of a card is contextual.  I don't think anyone would argue this.
The 'power' of a deck is contextual (their overall success is dependant upon the metagame).  Again, I don't think anyone would argue this.
All decks in the Metagame are constantly evolving to strengthen their matchups with current and anticipated decks.  I agree.

My issue with these statements is that they essentially tell you nothing about the current discussion of Blue deck vs Hate deck other than they both operate within the same framework.  Given the decks that we are discussing, hate/blue deck, which deck is more likely to thrive given these conditions?

My point is that the blue deck can much more easily adapt.  The blue deck is based on card drawing, tutors, and counterspells.  It can also quite easily access all 5 colors.  The blue deck also has the advantage of just being able to win. The Hate deck typically has to find hate, resolve hate, and then resolve/protect a win condition in order to win.  The blue deck has the luxury skipping the first two steps.

The blue deck seems to have too many inherent advantages over the hate decks.  I think the most important of which is that it’s likely a very good deck, even in a vacuum.   As a result it will also typically have better matchups across the board.  The hate deck appears much more susceptible to losing to random.dec (of course the blue deck is not immune to this, but due to its high number of cards that can win the game, upon resolution, it appears less likely) or even a tier 2 deck that it’s unprepared for.

I think it’s as basic as the general game plan for each deck.
Blue Deck:
1) Resolve some relatively powerful card that puts me far enough ahead to win (tinker, will, tezz, gifts, recall, etc…)
2) Win
Hate Deck:
1) limit my opponents options
2) resolve some threats
3) race
4) win?

Clearly this is oversimplified to some extent, but I don’t think it’s far off. 

Enough derailing of this thread though.  I anxiously await your next article.

As far as the tweaks to the deck.  How has the jet been working out?  I’m still not on sold on Mindcensor, but I’m not really sure what to put in its place.  I’ve been testing Life from the Loam and it’s been fine, but not amazing.  I tried Duress, and I wasn’t particularly impressed. 

I appreciate all of the info that you’re providing in these articles, and I look forward to seeing how you evolve the deck over time.

[kuberr]

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.   

Feel free to replace the word 'hate' with answer in my previous post if that helps.

[Smmenen]

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.   

Feel free to replace the word 'hate' with answer in my previous post if that helps.

It doesn't.  That's the problem.    There is no such thing as a 'hate' deck unless all decks are hate decks.    What you described for hate decks is simply another mode of deck construction, and describes Stax as much as it does Fish or Beats.   It also describes KEEPER or mono blue. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

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.  That said, interaction *is* hate.  When you try to interact and gain advantage by it, you're almost certainly somehow hating the opponent.  Even though Drains are as close to generic hate as it comes, they're still interaction towards some advantage.

Consider a fictional spell with this rules text:

Name a card. Search target opponent's library for that card.  You may reveal it, if you do, you win the game.

Is this hate?  Obviously you always name Black Lotus (or Bazaar vs dredge). Is it therefore hate against black lotus?  Is it even interactive?

[smasher]

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.   

These cards would likely not make the cut if time vault didn't receive errata. Therefore the answers chosen are powerful given the current metagame. Calling this bgw hate deck to the metagame seems fine.

I can see why you want to get away from the term hate deck in hopes of creating a little more substance to the deck in discussion. It still seems largely irrelevant to the discussion in whole though. If you follow the current vintage metagame and the metagame reports then it is understood that tezzeret is the deck to beat and a hate deck would be one designed to answer that deck. When the metagame shifts and a new deck is similarly performing then a new hate deck will be developed with new answers and it will still be understood what the deck is when referred to as such.

I suppose if you are an outsider to vintage/magic then the term hate deck is confusing but I would bet that any deck name is equally confusing.