[FREE Article] Meandeck Beats, Revised

[AmbivalentDuck]

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. 

This is a solid point: you make models to better understand the underlying system.

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...

You actually sound like more of a reductionist (in the quote above) whereas I'm definitely taking the complex systems/non-linear dynamics approach.  I squarely disagree with any attempt to label it as positivism, though.  I don't think a Bayesian approach to function-space decomposition veers terribly far from itself being metaphysical.

[nataz]

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.   

All of this is important, too bad we aren't talking about it. For what its worth, I agree with you, and its nice to see more people putting time into non traditioal vintage decks.

[KBH]

Sorry about that, I was unclear.  The positivism I meant was the attempt to quantify "the metagame" as more or less a function of what cards are played in what proportions, which decks (I suppose you could call these "card spaces") are most recurrent, and so on.  The fact that this is not entirely the case appears to us in at least two ways

A. dramatic shifts accompanying important changes in the Banned/Restricted list and other regulatory changes ("important" here being tautological I guess)
B. gradations attributable to many external factors such as region/locale, powered vs unpowered, prominent commentators, "teams", and so on

And no I don't think Bayesian analysis is metaphysical -- metaphysics is considering the concept of "non-linear system" to be an Ideal and given examples to be mere figments thereof.  Steve is actually much closer to metaphysics than anyone else.

In my opinion, for years the entire format has revolved around the single question of 'What happens when blue reaches a critical density and Force of Will is the only remaining culprit?'  This is why I think Steve's attempt to make a new taxonomy of the restricted list is entirely an artifact of a very odd, very belated, and likely very short, moment in time.

Finally, the difference between positivism and a dialectical approach: consider an engine.  You can look under the hood and identify all of the myriad processes that are underway while an engine runs.  But at the end of the day you want to talk about whether the car runs.  "Putting it back together" requires more than isolating the ensemble of processes and reactions and then assigning them individual causative powers

[Neonico]

 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*

I would definatly play drain control in a all ichorid metagame, simply because drain will give me the mana boost i need to win faster, the counter part of the spell being irrevelant.
That's why mana drain isn't a hate card. It can be a counterspell, yes, but it's also a riatual. And as dark ritual, it will fill the mana boost role when you don't need the counter part of it.... That's why Mana drain is an engine card, and can't be classified as a hate card.
And to solve the problem of my deck against ichorid being dominant, i will just adapt 4 or 5 maindeck slots with graveyard hate. Once again, this exemple totally illustrate my point of view.

[Smmenen]

@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.

I think this notion: that there is a structural assymetry in that Tezzeret decks can adapt but that Fish decks cannot is the flawed assumption.   Fish decks can certainly adapt.   That's why this isn't about the ability to adapt, it's about whether innovators will step up and allow it to adapt.  It's an arms race on both sides.  

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.

You are assuming that the Tezzeret deck is the dominant deck in some sort of structural sense rather than at a particular moment in the metagame.   That's part of your general assymetry assumption.  

If Tezzeret is dominant, truly so, then perhaps Mana Drain needs to be restricted.  But if it's not, and I think there are plenty of reasons to thikn that it is not -- such as the success of Null Rod decks in winning both ICBM tournaments -- then it's not about a dominant deck versus a non-dominant deck.  It's about decks competing in a metagame, and about one deck temporarily outperforming another with superior technology.

Tezzeret has won the recent battles, but that doesn't mean its won the war.

@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.

The whole idea of a 'pillar' is a metahpor I came up with a long time ago in my articles on SCG in talking about Vintage.   I first proposed the pillar framework, and Tom Lapille, who used to be a teammate of mine (and a test partner, since he lived in Ohio with me), adopted it in talking about the Vintage restricted list.   These ideas: Pillars, Engines, etc.  They are metaphors, not reality.   They are only talked about to the extent that they are useful.   Null Rod has happened to be a pillar of the format from time to time, and, despite what you say, is so today.    It's a pillar because of one simple reason: it allows decks to be built around it.  And not just one deck, but a bunch of archetypes.   It's not an engine in that it doesn't 'generate mana or draw cards', but that doesn't mean it's not a pillar of the format.  Force of Will isn't an engine, but if you read Tom LaPille's framework, Force is a pillar, along with Dark Ritual, Bazaar, and Shop.

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.

This is so wrong.    

First, the whole lesson of the Vintage Championship was that the decks that ended up winning were *HIGHLY* metagamed.    Itou's Tezzeret list is a brillliantly metagamed deck.   It's got basic Swamp, THREE anti-artifact spells (Rack and Ruin, Chain of Vapor, Hurkyl's Recall) TWO anti creature spells: Darkblast AND Fire/Ice, and Magus of the Unseen for the mirror and Shop.   If he was playing a field of TPS and Ad Nauseam, he would have been crushed.

The second and third place lists were similarly metagamed.     All of the other great players who showed up just playing what they felt were the most powerful decks they could build -- guess what happened to them?  They didn't win.   They didn't make top 8.   They are dissapointed in their performace, left wondering why their 'most powerful cards' didnt' win for them.  

Second, you've got it completely backward.   The "best decks" are a function of the metagame, not separate from it or a function of 'best engines' separate from the metagame.  They are only 'best' because of the existing form of the metagame.   If the metagame were to look very differently, then the best deck would necessarily be different.

Third, if your argument is simply to play the most poweful spells, then why wouldn't you play with Yawgmoth's Bargain and Mind's Desire in every deck?  

Best has no meaning outside of the context of Vintage format and the composition of 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.

Of course the tweaks you make to your decks are influenced by the metagame, but the conclusion that a deck is 'best' is only knowable in the context of a metagame.    Outside of the metagame, no such claims about being 'best' can be made.    That's what you are missing.

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 it's very easy to deny that.    I think given the context, the current card pool in Vintage, one could say that most of the cards in Meandeck Beats are inherently good:

Null Rod: Moxen exist.  Black Lotus Exists.   The best cards in the game tend to abuse these cards, things like Yawg Will for instance.   moxen and other artifacts often make up as much as 33% of some mana bases.  Null Rod is insanely powerful.
Aven Mindcensor:  The format is full of tutors, including a mana base built on Fetchlands
Dark Confidant: best creature ever?
Thoughtseize: one of the best disruption spells ever, perhaps second only to Force and Trinisphere?
Qasali Pridemage: 20% of all fields are Shops.  Time Vault is legal in the format.    THat's another 30% of the field.   Against the rest of the field, it's a power booster and wins Goyf wars.  It's pretty much good across whatever hypothetical metagame you could construct out of the Vintage card pool given some notion of what's good in the format.
Gaddock Teeg: FOrce of Will is in the format.
And so on.

The fact of the matter is that lots and lots of Tezzeret players were crushed as the ICBM Open by Null Rod decks.  There TEzzeret players were mostly running Night's Whisper as the replacement.    Tezzeret decks that ultimately have succeeded since have acknowledged a dramatic change in the field, and have adjusted pretty starkly.   Most are running Bobs now.   ALl are running lots of bounce/removal.    Tezzeret decks did poorly at the ICBM open.   Now they are doing well.     They appear to be quite sensitive to metagame changes, as all decks are.    

I think of Tezz (insert current powerful restricted deck name here) as being highly inelastic, while Hate decks are highly elastic.  

Exactly.  This is what I'm talking about -- these assumptions of assymetry.  It's false.  It's a perceptual falsehood explained by how we process and interpret information.   Read my article here about how little Meandeck Beats had to change to swing the matchup back.  Just as much as Tez had to change: a few key cards.    I don't think there are any grounds whatsoever for concluding that one deck is somehow more 'elastic' than another in that regard.    It's simply untrue.

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 love it.

This is one of the reasons I love Trinisphere as a teaching device.     Think about Trinisphere decks.   Their plan is to stop the opponent from playing spells.  But in reality 'trying to stop the opponent from winning'  is not distinguishable from a plan that is described as "trying to win themselves.'    The fact of the matter is that the two are actually the same.   The strategy that Trinisphere decks employed is to prevent the opponent from playing spells as a way to win.  

My point is that this descriptive dichtomy is nonsense.  

Mono Blue decks try to prevent the opponent from winning first.  That's also what The Deck did.  But it wasn't a 'hate deck,' whatever that might mean.    

In fact, what you are describing is what is described in "Who's The Beatdown?" as Role.    But, the lesson there isn't that decks have an inherent role.  Rather, the optimal role is matchup dependent.   I thought this was one of the most basic lessons of magic.

I definitely agree that there are generally two approaches in Vintage: decks that try to combo out and use spells to prevent the opponent from stopping them (Tez, TPS, Ad Nauseam, Bazaar, etc) and decks that try to stop the opponent in general (Stax, Fish, Beats).   But, 1) the latter aren't 'hate' decks, any more than Trinistax or Keeper is a 'hate' deck; 2) the line between them is not always clear.   Decks switch roles depending on the match, design tweaks etc; 3) since we already have useful terminology to describe these differnt roles (see Who's the Beatdown?), using the term 'hate,' which is very misleading and imaccurate seems like a bad idea.

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”.

That's not what Dave Price said.   That's a bad misquote.    If that were true, then Matenda Lion would be better than Moat.  

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.

Did you not see where I said power is contextual?  What is the context?  It's both the card pool AND the metagame.   It's not one or the other. It's both.    The card pool is important independent of the metagame because interactions themselves create synergy.  And the degree of (or web of) synergy is what we mean by power in the 'objective' sense (that is, metagame-independent sense).  That point is why I linked to my article in this thread, as it established that important idea which no one else had made in a magic theory article before.    

Going down the "if so and so didn't exist..." line of thought is a slippery slope.   If Time Vault didn't exist, sure, Qasali Pridemage wouldn't be as powerful.  But Time Vault does exist.    If Ancestral Recall didn't exist, Merchant Scroll wouldn't be restricted, let alone powerful.  If Yawgmoth's Will didn't exist, Gifts Ungiven wouldn't be restricted or that good either.  If Tolarian Academy didn't exist, lots of other cards wouldn't be good either. If Alpha dual lands didn't exist, Onslaught fetchlands wouldn't be nearly as powerful.      What's your point?

You can't say that: if one card didn't exist, another card wouldn't be that powerful as the touchstone for your measurement of elasticity or not.   The presence of a single card can and does make a huge difference.  

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.

My problem with the term 'hate' is not semantcis.  It's that is draws out a whole series of nested/interconnected assumptions that I'm calling out as wrong, which Neonico and Kuberr just articulated, among others.  

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.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm somehow in 'golly-shucks awe' of complexity, and then overwhelmed by it.  That is not the case.  

The purpose of the article was to explicate and apply three related systems theory principles, and since they sequentially build on each other, present (develop) them in that order. The first principle is the principle of emergence. The explanation for emergence is found in a systems organization (and a systems organization is simply the relationships between parts). The second principle is the shift in emphasis from looking the parts of a system (which is how most magic players think/analyze) to the relationships between a systems parts. Together, these two principles suggest a new paradigm for understanding causation and causality. This was the discussion of Thoughtseize, etc.  As a trio, together these principles have many applications for magic design, deck construction, in-game analysis, and so on. This is, of course, an oversimplication, but that's the nutshell version.

The reason I cited that article was for the idea that what we call power is actually the sum of the synergistic interactions in the card pool.  
One manifestation of this fact is that interactivity needs to be reconceptualized, to some degree.   Interactivity is at the core of Magic, and it's not just about how players 'feel' about how their decisions influence the game, but about the cards, the decks, and the various interfacing systems.   I think it's a mistake to use 'interactivity' as a metric for defining 'hate' decks, as you were suggesting, and I was using this article as the theoretical foundation for why I believe that to be the case.  

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.

I am in complete agreement with the spirit of your ideas here.  The problem is that our language reflects our thinking.  And this dichotomy between the (implicit) "good" or dominant decks and "hate" (read: junk/bad) decks is a dichotomy built on certain interconnected assumptions, many of which are flawed.   It may be a useful way of communicating, but so is using racial epithets and other language that we shouldn't be using.  

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.

You'll notice I use the term "Fish" in my metgame analysis articles.  I've even redefined the term in practical terms.  

What I wrote earlier is 100% applicable:

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.  
 

There.  No need to write an article on this topic now.  

[Grand Inquisitor]

Tezzeret decks did poorly at the ICBM open.   Now they are doing well.     They appear to be quite sensitive to metagame changes, as all decks are.   

Is Tez grabbing only 6 out of 16 T8 spots doing poorly?

Sure Null Rod based decks won both days, but they only placed 3 out of those same 16 spots.  Who knows what the total player counts were for each deck, maybe there's bias, but I'm not sure you want to overemphasize fish's success during this period (or underestimate how consistent Tez has been throughout).

Thanks for the response.  Whether people agree or not, this is good, thorough discussion.

[Smmenen]

This article is now FREE!    Enjoy!!!

[sean1i0]

Steve (or anyone else who has been testing this deck for that matter), I am just getting back into Vintage after a hiatus that started with the restrictions of Gush, Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm, and Ponder.  First off, I've really enjoyed the decks so far that seem to be filling the metagame.  Secondly, in the limited testing that I've gotten to do with this deck so far it appears to be a real beast, but my local playtest group has gotten a lot smaller, so I testing can be scarse.   Anyway, I am wondering what thoughts on this deck are 3 months later by others who are working with it.  Especially in light of Matt Elias's awesome article showing how poorly Null Rod decks performed at the Philly IV.  Like I said, so far it has been a beast for me, since Teeg and Null Rod just have game warping effects that, coupled with the rest of the disruption and a fast clock, make it seem like a an aggro prison deck at times.  Thanks in advance for any input!

[voltron00x]

Steve (or anyone else who has been testing this deck for that matter), I am just getting back into Vintage after a hiatus that started with the restrictions of Gush, Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm, and Ponder.  First off, I've really enjoyed the decks so far that seem to be filling the metagame.  Secondly, in the limited testing that I've gotten to do with this deck so far it appears to be a real beast, but my local playtest group has gotten a lot smaller, so I testing can be scarse.   Anyway, I am wondering what thoughts on this deck are 3 months later by others who are working with it.  Especially in light of Matt Elias's awesome article showing how poorly Null Rod decks performed at the Philly IV.  Like I said, so far it has been a beast for me, since Teeg and Null Rod just have game warping effects that, coupled with the rest of the disruption and a fast clock, make it seem like a an aggro prison deck at times.  Thanks in advance for any input!

I'm sure you'll get an answer to this from Mr. Menendian also, but I actually think Meandeck Beats is well-positioned, and in fact is one of the best of the Null Rod strategies, if not the best.  It has significant game against the key players (Oath, Tezz, Shops), although I'd probably add some more Ichorid hate if I were going to play it locally (which I am strongly considering). 

No one actually played this deck at the Open, and there are definitely major differences between this build and G/W in the current meta (Diabolic Edict being one of the key ones).  Although I lumped the Null Rod decks together, the only deck that had multiple players was Noble Fish (with 3, 2 of which had Selkie), so while "Null Rods" had a bad day, that isn't really a reflection on this deck and how it might've done.

[Smmenen]

Steve (or anyone else who has been testing this deck for that matter), I am just getting back into Vintage after a hiatus that started with the restrictions of Gush, Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm, and Ponder.  First off, I've really enjoyed the decks so far that seem to be filling the metagame.  Secondly, in the limited testing that I've gotten to do with this deck so far it appears to be a real beast, but my local playtest group has gotten a lot smaller, so I testing can be scarse.   Anyway, I am wondering what thoughts on this deck are 3 months later by others who are working with it.  Especially in light of Matt Elias's awesome article showing how poorly Null Rod decks performed at the Philly IV.  Like I said, so far it has been a beast for me, since Teeg and Null Rod just have game warping effects that, coupled with the rest of the disruption and a fast clock, make it seem like a an aggro prison deck at times.  Thanks in advance for any input!

I could not suggest a revised list without alot of more recent testing or using a process to the one I used last week with Tezzeret.   

[sean1i0]

Matt and Steve, thanks to both of you for the thoughts.  Matt, that's interesting that no one would have played this version and really useful to know.  I definitely agree that this would seem to be one of the best Null Rod decks based on the limiting testing that I've gotten to do so far.  Steve, I am definitely going to continue testing out this deck and seeing what results I can get out of it. 

[Smmenen]

Just to be clear: I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't play that decklist.  I was just adding the caveat that I would thoroughly test and consider my options before running it, or any deck that I built three months ealier, in a tournament.

[sean1i0]

No worries there, I got what you were saying.  I appreciate it, too.  I think that the next night I have to playtest (Wednesday night) I am going to attempt to use the recent tournament statistics to start trying to go through a process similar to what you have done with Tezzeret with this deck to see what I can do.  I really like that process, too, by the way.  I think it will help me with my most challenging problem when I am putting together a deck, which is that I try to cram too much into it.  If I use your process I think it will be clearer.

[voltron00x]

I got some games in last night with MD Beats.  Its enjoyable.  I would definitely recommend it as a budget choice, for sure.  The power level on the deck is fine... but I do have some concerns that its basically a 50/50 deck.  It has really no poor match-ups that stand out, but you can't really stop decks from just going "broken" on you either.  Provided that you can live with that, I've found that its a balanced and powerful deck that is well-positioned for what it is.  

The sideboard I was working with looked like this:

3 True Believer
3 Yixlid Jailer
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Path to Exile
1 Seal of Cleansing
1 Seal of Primodrium
1 Krosan Grip

The idea here is that I've upped the Ichroid hate quite a bit.  I don't like how Planar Void nerfs your best clock (Tgoyf) and Ichorid continues to do well in PA/NJ/NY.  If your opponent is using Contagion to deal with Jailer, you're in good shape with Teeg in your deck.  Jailer seems like a good fit for this list.  

True Believer is for Oath (along with Seals and Grip), as well as TPS.  Path is for extra removal against Fish, but I'd also bring it in for Welder control (since Path is actually the best removal there is against 5C / BR Stax).

Darkblast is a card I'd like to fit, but couldn't.  It seems optimal for winning Goyf wars, and controlling Bobs and Welders.

I'm not sure there's enough Shop hate here, or how much is actually needed, as I haven't tested that match-up yet.

I also wish I could run 10 Pridemages.  I think I won every game where I got one into play, against Tezz and Oath.

[sean1i0]

Ok, so I've gotten a chance to test with this deck a good bit in the past 2 days, too.  Now, my testing with it I should first say has mainly been against TPS and Tezzeret.  I find that I'm echoing your thoughts a lot on this deck, Matt.  I feel like it is mainly a 50/50 deck.  Now, that is against a good pilot.  I'm sure that if I was playing someone who is not very good with a deck that MDB would have a 70/30 or even maybe an 80/20 against them, but you can't count on that past the first rounds of a tournament.  I do disagree, however, that this deck can't go "busted."  Granted, it's not the classic Vintage busted that we're used to thinking about, but MDB certainly has hands that are nearly unwinable for the opponent.  Other than that my findings have basically been reported here already in other posts.

[Smmenen]

Sean,

Have you read my testing in the article?   One of the things that really helped was bringing in Chalice.  Kowal had Thorn in his GW list, a similar tactic.    

Looking at the decklist I see some clear areas for improvement.   Have you tried using the process I used for Tezzeret two weeks ago? 

[sean1i0]

It's been a couple of weeks since I read through it, but, yes, it was very helpful.  And chalices were insane postboard.  There was one game postboard against TPS (with me piloting TPS) that I was just completely shut out of because of chalice complimenting the rest of the decks anti-combo tools.  I haven't started on the process of re-building the decklist yet, because I wanted to get a slightly better feeling for what MDB does and tries to accomplish first and how it plays out, but now that we've gotten a couple of extra days of testing in and (I feel like) a much better understanding of how the cards all pull together, I feel ready to start on it.  As a side note, hands with any combination of Thoughtseize, Null Rod, and/or Gaddock Teeg (the MVP!) feel nearly impossible to break through except with the most broken of hands.  I also found that I love having the 3 Moxen, Black Lotus, and 3 ESGs in the deck.  Getting down Null Rod turn 1 or being able to Thoughtseize + Gaddock Teeg turn 2 or any other myriad of plays like that is just so incredibly relevant to being able to win the game.

[Smmenen]

It's really important not to get discouraged.   In my experience a few cards can make a huge difference.  Changing as many as 3-4 cards in the maindeck can produce a huge swing in matchup %. 

[sean1i0]

Thanks for the encouraging words.  I am definitely going to keep on trucking with the deck, because I do feel like it's got the tools in its colors to be a Tier 1 threat.  I also really want this deck to get more attention and be more of played.  I think that it would be very healthy for the format to have a sizable percentage of the metagame be playing MDB.  Plus, Gaddock Teeg is just busted card advantage.  He's like a Meddling Mage that gets to name more than one card.  He is, I think, one of the best creatures ever printed.

[Smmenen]

Just eyeballing the decklist, after having not seen it for some time, I actually wonder if Chalice or Duress would be better than Mindcensor, given the shape of the metagame right now.   In fact, I'd lead towards a few Duresses main.   The best way to deal with Tinker is not Aven Mindcensor, but Diabolic Edict.   I would consider adding a 4th Edict, as well.   Also, Kowal hates Goyfs -- which I like, but it might be possible to shave off a Goyf for another disruptive card.  That might get you some more EV in more relevant matchups.

[sean1i0]

Hmmm well I did love Aven Mindcensor, but that is an interesting thought.  Chalice of the Void was the stone cold nuts postboard and Thoughtseize was insane which could mean that Duress would be, too.  I wonder if 3 Chalices, 1 Duress, and a 4th Diabolic could be fit as a starting place to test.  Do you think maybe:

-3 Aven Mindcensor
-2 Tarmogoyf

+ 3 Chalice of the Void
+ 1 Duress
+ 4th Diabolic Edict

to start testing? I really don't like going below 3 Tarmogoyfs, but I can't think of anything else in the deck that I would like as a starting place.  I think that 4 Gaddock Teeg, 4 Null Rod, 4 Qasali Pridemage, and 4 Thoughtseize need to stay for now.  Maybe this instead:

-3 Aven Mindcensor
-1 Tarmogoyf
-1 Dark Confidant

for the proposed additions instead.

[Miaou]

I like this deck a lot, but I have some questions I was hoping maybe Sean or Stephen could answer:

- Does the disynergy between Teeg and Chalice come up often enough that you would like to cut a number of one or the other? I understand you want to draw one asap, but drawing Chalice after Teeg is on the board is wasted...

- If you are trying to squeeze in the Duress effects, could they replace the ESGs? As I see it the ESGs are there to increase the number of turn one plays, so subbing them out for Duress which is also a great turn one play might work?

- If you do take out the ESGs, then the Mindcensors become quite expensive. Could you take them out for Chalice?

That way you end up with something like:

4 Tarmogoyf
4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Dark Confidant
4 Gaddock Teeg

4 Thoughtseize
4 Duress
4 Null Rod
3 Chalice
4 Diabolic Edict
1 Demonic Consultation
1 Vampiric Tutor

23 mana sources.

If what I say is stupid or clearly won't work ignore this post

[sean1i0]

Well, this is how I'm seeing it as of now:

-I'm going to tackle the ESG comment first, because I feel more certain about those.  To me, maximizing your ability to play Gaddock Teeg or Null Rod (especially those two cards) on turn one is incredibly important.  Also, the ability to set up plays like turn 2 Thoughtseize/Duress + Gaddock Teeg/Null Rod/Dark Confidant/Tarmogoyf/Chalice of the Void depending on your matchup is really important as well.  Now, this is just me saying this without having tested it.  Maybe, a density of threats is better than the card disadvantage of ESG, but never forget that a topdecked ESG can be played as a beater whereas a duress cannot.  This definitely doesn't sound like a stupid suggestion at all though, despite the fact that it seems like it is *probably* suboptimal; I would certainly be interested in knowing the results if you tested that.

-As far as Teeg and Chalice go, I have not gotten to test out Chalice mainboard yet, so what I will say will be speaking strictly from theory and from that experience.  Postboard it didn't seem to matter as if you draw and play Chalice first, you can still play Gaddock Teeg; if you play Gaddock Teeg first you are probably winning anyway and because of the presence of only 3 Chalice you are less likely to draw in lots of them anyway after Teeg.  I suppose you could also just think about it like having Teeg 5-7 if you play it first.  I guess I'm thinking about it so far like I do about drawing multiple Teegs.  I am really never sad about drawing more than one, because either it allows me to definitely get one through counterspells or it makes sure that if one is dealt with the opponent only has a one turn window before another comes down.

-Finally, if you did test out taking out the ESGs, then I definitely think that you should take out the Aven Mindcensors for Chalices, since I agree that they would then likely become too expensive.  You only have a fixed number of turns to put a soft lock down before the opponent gets to a point where they are likely to win.