The Lure of Metagame Decks

[BC]

Occasionally, the world of Vintage Magic becomes pretty much dominated by a single deck archetype.  This “best deck” has a high rate of success relative to other archetypes, and as a result will comprise a large percentage of decks at tournaments.  Like it or not, this is what is happening now.  Since the “fixing” of Time Vault, the Vintage metagame is overrun by blue control decks built around the Time Vault/Voltaic Key/Tezzeret the Seeker combo.  The question is, in a world where there really is no debate about what is the best deck, why do people choose to play anything else?  In an attempt to partially answer this question, I will be discussing “metagame” or “hate” decks: what they are, why people play them, and what currently viable metagame decks look like.

What is a metagame deck?

Metagame decks, or hate decks, are archetypes that are designed to have a favorable matchup against the best deck or decks currently defining the format.  All decks labeled “Fish” comprise the majority of what would probably be considered metagame decks.  Hate decks are typically not inherently powerful themselves.  Don’t be surprised if your finely tuned Fish deck gets crushed by Standard Zoo.  It wasn’t built for that.  Metagame decks don’t combo off or smash face; instead they win by exhausting an opponent’s resources and delaying their strategy enough to slowly beat the opponent to death with 2/2 creatures.  Hate decks are similar to prison decks such as Stax, but are more specific to the archetypes against which they will be matched.  Metagame decks work because they are designed specifically to beat a small number of archetypes that make up a large percentage of the tournament.  If you were going to a tournament where you knew the metagame would be comprised of 75% Goblin decks, you would probably start building your hate deck with something like 4x Pyroclasm, Moat, Wrath of God, Engineered Plague, etc.  Therefore, in order to be truly successful piloting a metagame deck, it is absolutely necessary to have a good idea about what decks you will be facing, and how your deck will beat them.

What is not a metagame deck?

Not every deck that is not the “best deck” is a metagame deck.  Some are just tier 2 or tier 3 decks.  Ichorid, for example, is not a hate deck.  It is not the best deck in the format, and it is not designed specifically to interact with the best deck.  In fact, it’s not really designed to interact with anything.  Instead, it simply takes an alternative approach to winning, and tries to accomplish this faster than whatever opponent happens to be sitting across from it.  Stax is also not a metagame deck, although it’s closer than Ichorid.  Stax has a much higher percentage of cards that are meant to disrupt the opponent, however most of these cards are not specific to facing any particular archetype.

Ok, but why do people play metagame decks instead of the “best deck”?

I have had this conversation more than once.  “Tezz/Gro/Gifts/Pitch Long/Slaver is so good, why would you play anything else?”  In my opinion there are several reasons:

1. A desire to play something different or novel. For whatever reason, Magic players have an innate desire to play something original; something they designed that features their own special tech.  This is especially true amongst new players.  If you don’t believe me, go play Tezz on Magic Workstation and see how often you get called a netdecker.  After a short while, Vintage players usually get this beaten out of them, and they realize that it is a monumental task to come up with something that is better than what is already out there.  Vintage is a finely tuned format.  That’s the brutal truth.  Still, if there is one area in Vintage where there is room for innovation, it is metagame decks.  Wizards isn’t going to print another Yawgmoth’s Will, but they keep printing cards like Qasali Pridemage.  Each new card has the potential to become a major player in the world of hate decks.

2. Attempting to be unexpected and catch people off guard. If players are expecting to play against one deck, then there is some merit to not playing that deck.  Best case scenario, there is something in your deck that they don’t have an answer for.  More likely, a few cards in their deck won’t be relevant anymore.  Either way, a well crafted metagame deck can catch someone with their pants down, and give you an advantage, especially in game 1.

3. For a new or inexperienced player, a metagame deck might give them the best chance to win. This is a legitimate reason to play a hate deck.  Someone who is new to Vintage will have a rough time facing an experience player if they are both playing the same deck.  A metagame deck may give them a chance to steal a win from a superior player.  Also, most metagame decks are simpler to play than the best decks, which are typically blue control or combo.  So it is possible that a hate deck will give an inexperience player the best chance to win now, and then play the best decks in the future when they get better.

4. An experienced player may just looking for a change.  There are some players who find it tedious to play the same deck every week, tweaking 2 cards here and there and calling it innovation.  Then again, there are some players who don’t seem to mind.  Metagame decks are a good way for experienced players to get a little variety in their tournament experience, while still giving themselves a chance to win.

5. A metagame deck might fit their play style. Vintage is hard.  Sitting there for 5 turns with UU open, repeatedly declaring your second main phase… that takes some patience.  I know when I started playing Vintage, I had a very hard time properly playing control decks.  I still do.  Since the best decks are typically control decks, for a long time metagame decks were more my speed.  I’m happy to say I’m getting better at playing control, but the fact remains that it’s not an easy thing to do, and for some people it’s just not any fun.  Some people like to tap out and play a guy every turn. 

What do current metagame decks look like?

As I said in my introduction, the current metagame is dominated by Time Vault decks.  As a consequence, there is really only one valid metagame deck.  It’s built something like: 4 Null Rod, 56 other cards.  Null Rod is unequivocally difficult for Time Vault decks to handle.  It truly is the most valid piece of hate available.  Plus, combined with Wasteland/Strip Mine it wrecks enemy mana, just like it always did. 

Recently, a few hate decks have had some impressive finishes, taking a little bite out of Tezz’s reign of terror.  Here are a few of the distinct archetypes:

GW Beetz - Kowal
2nd Place: Traviscon 10/24/09

3 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
3 Horizon Canopy
4 Savannah
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Windswept Heath
1 Karakas
2 Forest
1 Plains
3 Emerald, Pearl, Lotus

4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Aven Mindcensor
3 Gaddock Teeg
3 Elvish Spirit Guide
2 Vexing Shusher
2 Jotun Grunt
2 Ethersworn Canonist
2 Kataki, Wars Wage

4 Null Rod
3 Thorn of Amethyst
2 Enlightened Tutor
2 Choke
1 Seal of Cleansing

Sideboard:
1 Seal of Cleansing
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Vexing Shusher
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Samurai of the Pale Curtain
2 Wheel of Sun and Moon
3 Exalted Angel
3 True Believer

Kowal’s GW deck is a pretty awesome example of a hate deck.  He runs 22 creatures (19 not counting ESG), all with CMC of 2 or 3, all of which disrupt the primary strategy of blue control decks.  Qasali Pridemage is a house.  It is probably the second most relevant card when facing Time Vault, second only to Null Rod.  Plus, this deck runs Choke main, which is hot.  The sideboard has very few cards that would come in against blue control, since this deck is preboarded for that matchup.


Selkie Fish – Camille Fenet, Benjamin Guillerm, Alexi Catelain
3 of the top 4 decks: French Vintage Cup '09 Finals 10/17/09

3  Tropical Island
3  Tundra
1  Island
1  Forest
3  Wasteland
1  Strip Mine
2  Windswept Heath
1  Flooded Strand
2  Misty Rainforest
4  Lotus, Sapphire, Emerald, Pearl

3  Qasali Pridemage
4  Cold-Eyed Selkie
4  Noble Hierarch
3  Meddling Mage
3  Trygon Predator
2  Tarmogoyf

1  Hurkyl's Recall
4  Force of Will
3  Daze
1  Misdirection
4  Null Rod
1  Ancestral Recall
1  Time Walk
1  Merchant Scroll
2  Stifle
1  Rebuild
1  Spell Pierce

Sideboard
1  Relic of Progenitus
2  Tarmogoyf
1  Energy Flux
3  Swords to Plowshares
2  Umezawa’s Jitte
3  Wheel of Sun and Moon
2  Burrenton Forge-Tender
1  Ravenous Trap

This list is a composite build, based on the lists of three of the top 4 finishers at the French Vintage Cup '09 Finals.  One of the lists ran Ninjas and Cursecatchers as well.  This deck is also built around Null Rod and Qasali Pridemage, but also includes blue, enabling counterspells and card draw, both of which are conspicuously missing from Kowal’s list.


Aggro MUD - Iván Zancada
2nd Place: Grand Finale LMV 2 – Madrid 10/11/09

4 Mishra´s Workshop
3 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Ancient Tomb
4 Mishra´s Factory
9 Crypt, Vault, Sol, Moxes, Lotus
2 Myr Enforcer
4 Frogmite
4 Juggernaut
1 Trinisphere
4 Sphere of Resistance
4 Thorn of Amethyst
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Sculpting Steel
2 Orb of Dreams
2 Crucible of Worlds
4 Null Rod

SB
1 Crucible of Worlds
1 Wasteland
2 Powder Keg
2 Tormod´s Crypt
3 Jester´s Cap
3 Duplicant
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Gaea´s Blessing

This is a slightly different approach to hate decking.  Null Rod is still present, but rather than disruptive little creatures or permission spells, Iván has gone with as many Sphere effects as possible, powered out by Mishra’s Workshop, and Affinity creatures that get around said Spheres.  This is not a Stax list, since hard locking an opponent is not the goal, but rather slowing them down while medium-sized robots beat ass.  This is also not a traditional metagame deck per se, but rather a metagamed aggro deck that matches up well with most of the top decks in Vintage.

As a brief conclusion, I will just say that metagame decks are a legitimate strategy in competitive Vintage.  There are valid reasons to play them, and there is room for innovation and creativity in their construction.  So put down that Tezz deck.  Just for a minute.  It’ll be ok.

[Smmenen]

Did you start this thread to irritate me ?    In one giant post you say almost everything that I disagree with in current Vintage theory!  It's incredible, actually.  

My view: All decks are metagame decks.  There is no such thing as a hate deck.   There is no such thing as the 'best' deck, in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time.  Null Rod is not a hate card.  It's a good card.  Inherently so, given the card pool, pre-time vault even.

In my view, the GW deck, particularly the version that I designed and that Jon Donovan used to make top 8 at the ICBM Open and the Vintage Champs, and the GWb list that I played later on, are not metagame decks.  They are just great decks that prey on the metagame.   But that's no different than any other deck that does well, whether it's Painter, Control Slaver, or TPS.   TPS won the Vintage champs at a time when Control Slaver was the second best deck.   No wonder.   Control Slaver preyed on the decks in its metagame.    Each of these decks performs well (or not) because of the composition of the metagame.

We just think that they are hate decks, because of preconceptions we have about what's powerful and what's not.    Those conceptions are illusory, imo.

[BC]

Believe it or not, I didn't think about you when I wrote this. 

I don't disagree with what you're saying.  "Metagame", "hate", and "best" are just labels, but they are commonly used labels that are associated with specific types of decks. 

[Smmenen]

Believe it or not, I didn't think about you when I wrote this.  

I know :p.  I was being silly.

I don't disagree with what you're saying.  "Metagame", "hate", and "best" are just labels, but they are commonly used labels that are associated with specific types of decks.  

I disagree.  They may be labels, but they are more than *just* labels (as you say).   They have meaning(s).    

My name, Stephen, carries no meaning.  It is just a label.    However, calling a deck a 'hate' deck is not a mere label, it's descriptive AND characterization of what the deck is, it's function, not just it's name.  

And true, they are commonly used, but that doesn't mean that they are accurate :p

[BC]

Would you have felt better if instead of calling them "metagame" decks and "best" decks I defined them as Type A decks and Type B decks?  I could have described each of the types and how they are different, then the rest of the article would have been the same.  The difference is, by using the terms "metagame" and "best", people know what I'm talking about without me having to define them.  I'm just cutting corners. 

[Smmenen]

Would you have felt better if instead of calling them "metagame" decks and "best" decks I defined them as Type A decks and Type B decks?  I could have described each of the types and how they are different, then the rest of the article would have been the same.  The difference is, by using the terms "metagame" and "best", people know what I'm talking about without me having to define them.  I'm just cutting corners.  

I think that just illustrates my point: my problem is not with your labels, but the meaning that your labels conveys.   Remember, I just disagreed with you that these were just labels.  They clearly aren't. You just wrote a mini-article on what these labels mean.

If you labeled them Type A and Type B, my objection would be the same: the basis for such a distinction is illusory.     I would ask you what the basis for the different label is and proceed to criticize that distinction. 

To me, it's sort of like how some people call or used to refer to persons of African descent "black," persons of Asian descent, 'yellow,' and persons of European descent 'white.'   People aren't black, yellow, or white.   Yet for several hundred years those labels stuck.   And these labels were not just descriptive, they carried racial meanings. Not only is there is no biological basis for race (race is a social contruct), but people's skin tone aren't those colors.  No one of African descent is actually 'black,' nor does any European have 'white' skin color (not even albino's).  

The idea that some decks are metagame decks and some decks are 'best' decks (in some abstract, disconnected from observed performance in a defined time period) is just such a false distinction.  The labels exist because they carry meanings, and those meanings, like the labels, are illusory.  They don't exist.  They are a function of our flawed ways of knowing.

 

[BC]

Well, allow me to retort.  First, a nitpick:

Not only is there is no biological basis for race (race is a social contruct)...

False.  This is not true at all, at least not from an anthropological or genetic perspective.  People from different races certainly aren't different species, but there are real biological differences, both genetic and morphological.  If this were not true, we would not see the radical disparities in the occurrence of some diseases, which we do. 

The idea that some decks are metagame decks and some decks are 'best' decks (in some abstract, disconnected from observed performance in a defined time period) is just such a false distinction.

I disagree with this as well, although perhaps you saved it by saying the part about being disconnected from observed performance in a defined time period.  I don't think you can take a deck out of the metagame in which it is successful.  I certainly wouldn't want to do that, since that dictates much of the deck's success.  Here is how I define the two decks:

The Best Deck: This is the deck (or small number of decks) that is played by many of the best Vintage players.  As such, it is typically well represented at tournaments and in top 8's.  It is typically based in blue, and uses a good portion of the Restricted list (Ancestral, Time Walk, Tinker, Brainstorm, Moxes, Lotus, DT, VT, MT, Thirst, perhaps Gifts and/or FoF) as well as Force of Will and Mana Drain.  It is difficult, maybe impossible to find a time during the last 5+ years when a deck such as this has not been heavily represented in the metagame.  It has many variations, but the core of the deck remains the same as it was when I started playing Vintage.  It can fairly be called the best deck because it is an extremely powerful deck that defines Vintage, and typically enjoys a higher (or equally high) rate of success than other archetypes.  Whether or not it is legitimately the BEST, or rather just the archetype preferred by a large subsection of high caliber Vintage players, I can't speak to that.

The Metagame Deck: This is a deck that exists in a single time in the history of Vintage.  It exists because of that time period, and the decks that are thriving during that time.  Separating these decks from their time periods is a mistake, because then you lose the perspective of why they exist in the first place.  Metagame decks today look very different from how they looked a year ago, and from how they will look a year from now.  The builds do not have a high degree of permanence as the Best Deck does, or even as tier 2 decks like Ichorid and Stax have.  They are a reaction to the metagame.  This defines them as metagame decks.  If you take a metagame deck out of its historical context and try to play it in another era, it is likely that you will not have a greatly successful tournament, regardless of how good the deck used to be.

[Smmenen]

You aren't addressing the content of what I'm saying:

First you say that these terms are 'just' labels.

I said:

I disagree.  They may be labels, but they are more than *just* labels (as you say).   They have meaning(s).   

Then you say, fine, what if I just call them Type A or Type B.   And I responded:

I think that just illustrates my point: my problem is not with your labels, but the meaning that your labels conveys.   Remember, I just disagreed with you that these were just labels.  They clearly aren't. You just wrote a mini-article on what these labels mean.

If you labeled them Type A and Type B, my objection would be the same: the basis for such a distinction is illusory.     I would ask you what the basis for the different label is and proceed to criticize that distinction.

What is your answer?  You've apparently abandoned the 'labels' argument, and are now trying to more carefully define the distinction, a distinction I fundamentally think is illusory.   

It's the exact same debate I was having in this thread: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=38726.0

In fact, I already stated each of the premises if your article in my post in that thread

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.

Your article hits 1, 2, 3, and 4, although you don't go all the way to 5 and 6.  That's why I joked that you wrote this article to irritate me.  I've already called out this worldview before.

I am going to write an article called: There is No Such Thing As a Metagame Deck, and I will use this thread as a principle example of the major premises that people use in trying to draw such a distinction between 'hate' decks and 'best' decks.  It features, point by point, most of the ideas I strenuously disagree with.   You just don't get it, and you aren't alone.   

There is no such thing as a 'best' deck in some abstract sense, which is precisely how you are defining it.   You aren't hinging your definition of a best deck empirical data (as I do in my bimonthly metagame reports), but to some idea about it's internal components, the cards it uses, and the pilots who play it.   

 People continue to repeat this error.  So, in mid-December, I will publish my rebuttal article.  And when it's free, three months later, I'll post the link or large excerpts here.   

Your article doesn't even appear to have a point, except to suggest that it's ok to play metagame decks, and to help further inscribe a false distinction.  This is just fundamentally wrong, and I have numerous examples in Vintage history to disprove it.   I can disprove, with metagame stats, alot of your basic claims.   But more fundamentally, your claims are just wrong.

All decks are metagame decks.  No decks sits at the top or near the top of the metagame indefinitely.   All decks tend to cycle in and out as their metagame warrants.   What happens is that decks that first emerge tend to be called metagame decks, but over time become established archetypes.   The G/W/X deck is not a metagame deck anymore than Tezzeret.   They are both just good decks.  Period.   

It's sort of like that debacle Fish strategies thread started by CowWithHat.  he was saying the same garbage, that Null Rod is a bad card, a 'hate card,' etc.  Null Rod is not a 'hate' card for 'metagame decks,' which is apparently what your entire post is saying.  Null Rod is an unbelievably powerful card, and has been since 2004, at the latest.   It attacks the most utilized cards in the format, and it is has only grown more powerful since errata on Time Vault and restriction of Brainstorm forces greater reliance on Top.    Red Elemental Blast is not a hate card either, for the same reason.   

It's very important we get past these false ideas about 'most powerful,' 'hate,' etc.   They are unhelpful distinctions based on false dichotomies. 

[BC]

I'm going to choose not to respond, as you have clearly made up your mind on this issue already.  Also, your post seems pretty hostile, and I find arguing with you to be frustrating and futile.  Please don't mistake this for a concession or a cop out.  I'd rather just continue living my life rather than bang my head against a brick wall try to meet your unreasonable expectations for whatever this conversation is.

[Smmenen]

In the absence of resolving this issue through proper debate, be forewarned that I will continue to criticize and call out the use of those terms, when and where I see them used.   I think they are misleading and lead to a number of misconceptions about deck design and construction in Vintage.  I also think that these can be harmful because they lead to deck selection biases.   

If you are interested, and if you think that would be more fruitful as a way of resolving our differences of opinion here, I would be happy to have a phone conversation about the topic with you or any other Adept who wishes to seriously engage me about it.   Just PM me, if you accept my offer. 

[Matt]

I also think that these can be harmful because they lead to deck selection biases.   

Why are deck selection biases harmful?

[Smmenen]

I also think that these can be harmful because they lead to deck selection biases.  

Why are deck selection biases harmful?

I was speaking too generally.    Particular deck selection biases that lead people to dismiss certain decks or discount them because of the perception that those decks are 'hate' decks, etc, and vice versa, to select decks that are perceived as 'most powerful.'  They harm because these conceptual frames about what a deck is cause us to inaccurately judge a deck's strengths and weaknesses. 

[Diakonov]

I would contend that, "in the abstract," there is a best deck.  Consider the following thought experiment:

Suppose you could create a robust program that could generate every possible permutation of a Vintage tournament legal deck, given all the cards in the game that you could be allowed to play.  Now, say that you could run massive virtual tournaments where these decks would square off.  After running perhaps even only 100 or so trials, I'm SURE that you would start to see an emerging pattern of what types of decks perform well, and what cards are popping up with more frequency.  I'm also sure that the top performing decks would be running cards like Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, Lotus, Mana Drains, etc.

Now, I think this is more than fair when it comes to defining cards/decks that are "inherently" powerful.  That is, no thought has been given to metagaming whatsoever.  I contend that there would be a "best" deck in these circumstances, and I would even go so far as to say that it might look similar to current Tezz builds today.

A GW metagame/hate deck would likely not perform well in the previous experiment.  That is because it would normally be knocked out of contention long before it gets an opportunity to face the decks that it is strongest against (namely, drain decks), and this is due to the fact its good matchup is hugely underrepresented in this large data set.

Once you add metagaming to the mixture, things start to shift.  Naturally, there would be a population of tournament-goers who pay little mind to the specifics of the metagame, either because they are uninformed or because they want to try to account for all general strategies, which would lead one to create decks which differ insignificantly from the abstract "best deck."  Once there is a certain threshold population of people playing decks which are similar enough in this strategy and structure, what were once niche weaknesses have become prevalent enough to take advantage of.  Henceforth, the power of Null Rod is born.  (Decks featuring Null Rod probably would have fared terribly in the permutation auto-tournament.)

Therefore, I think it is fair to refer to these decks as "metagame decks," which "hate" on the "best decks," as long as we define the best decks as being those that would be, or are slight variations of, the top performers in an abstract environment that is unable to utilize metagaming.

[Rico Suave]

I think it's important to highlight that there is a distinction between a metagame deck and an archetype.  Fish for example is something you call a metagame deck, but I don't feel that this does it justice. 

Fish is a well established archetype with a long history to it.  It has roots dating back to CounterSliver from the Tempest era in 97, and Merfolk decks before then.  Its purpose has always been to slip efficient low-cost creatures under a counter-wall, then harass the opponent's life total with them while supporting with control elements like permission, though notably lacking much in the way of board control.

The aggro-control archetype has traditionally always excelled against control and combo, and since T1 is dominated by these decks Fish has also done well.  That doesn't make it "just" a metagame deck.  It is a legitimate archetype just like sligh, stompy, prison, Weissman-style control, etc. 

I could argue that any hate deck that shows up, such as G/W Beatz, is not a hate deck at all.  G/W Beatz is similar to a deck that hasn't really shown up in years at all - Stompy.  Did you know the original versions of Stompy ran Winter Orb to disrupt opponents?  Later builds would use Rishadan Port, Tangle Wire, Dust Bowl, and even splash for Armageddon (ErhaGeddon was the best deck of its time).  That sure sounds a lot like what G/W Beatz does when it uses Null Rod and other "hate" cards...

The strategy for these decks does not change.  That makes it an archetype.  The individual cards themselves do change.  That is metagaming. 

My only real point here is to differentiate between a metagame or hate deck, versus an already established archetype with years of history and performance to support it.  Metagaming is where you adjust the cards of a deck in anticipation of beating the field that shows up to a particular event, or perhaps change your deck choice entirely.  While Fish does metagame to beat its anticipated opponents, it should be noted that every deck does this.  Even the so called best decks. 

[Smmenen]

I would contend that, "in the abstract," there is a best deck.  Consider the following thought experiment:

Suppose you could create a robust program that could generate every possible permutation of a Vintage tournament legal deck, given all the cards in the game that you could be allowed to play.  Now, say that you could run massive virtual tournaments where these decks would square off.  After running perhaps even only 100 or so trials, I'm SURE that you would start to see an emerging pattern of what types of decks perform well, and what cards are popping up with more frequency.  I'm also sure that the top performing decks would be running cards like Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, Lotus, Mana Drains, etc.

Note, however, that this is not an abstract notion.  You've created a particular metagame from which you are determining what is best.  You've defined the metagame as all possible vintage legal tournament decks.  

  By metagame deck, the original poster meant a particular thing with certain indicators that tell us what such a thing is.  My claim is that there is no special category of metagame deck because everything is one.  So when I say there are no metagame decks, i really mean that there is no special case, or, alternatively, as i said in the first post, that all decks are metagame decks.

My view is that magic devolves into complex relations that somewhat resemble rock paper scissors.   My unrestricted magic experiment shows this.   I created a deck that can win 100% of the time on turn one, but it is beaten the vast majority of the time by a deck that runs 4 chalice, 4 null rod, 4 trinisphere, 4 Force, 4 Mindbreak Trap etc.    But that deck, in turn, is beaten by the Goblins deck.    Every deck conceiveable can be beaten (esp. with the printing of Mindbreak Trap), and this means that every deck that can beat another deck can in turn be beaten by another deck.   You might say that the 'best' deck is the deck that maximizes the number of good matchups and minimizes the number of bad matchups, but again, that has no meaning in the abstract unless those matchups actually appear in a field.  And the moment they appear in a field, the metagame shifts because the initial evaluation hinged upon what was expected to show up, and the definition of what's best shifts with it.   

So, to reconsider your hypo, if you were to discover a deck that perfomed best among all of the possible decks in existence, that deck would quickly become weak, because the decks that it beats would go away and the decks that it loses to would grow as a proportion of the real field.  It would become rock in a paper metagame.  And then the pilot would either have to adjust or play scissors, and thus the metagame dynamic emerges and constantly evolves.    

[TopSecret]

My view: All decks are metagame decks.  There is no such thing as a hate deck.   There is no such thing as the 'best' deck, in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time.

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

Obviously, these terms are superficial and simplifications of the reality of the situation,
but so are all other words, ideas, and formal discussions about Magic the Gathering.

I think your suggestion that these terms need to be unveiled as illusory is incorrect
because the biases and misplays that result from the interaction between these terms and players
are much more a fault of the players than the terms.

Even if you prove these terms are illusory, which you already have, and communicate that to players,
I do not see how that changes players' tendency to make over-generalizations about Magic the Gathering decks,
which is the main cause of the misplays in question.

[Smmenen]

My view: All decks are metagame decks.  There is no such thing as a hate deck.   There is no such thing as the 'best' deck, in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time.

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

Only if those suppositions are true.  See bullet 5 and 6 in my 6 point quoted  list mid-thread.  I don't believe these suppositions to be true.  I have plenty of evidence to the contrary.  

[Vegeta2711]

Why to play a Metagame deck in general: Because your too stupid to play Affinity.

Why to play a Metagame deck for major tournaments: Because you feel like gambling with the pairing gods.

Why to play a Metagame deck (secret reason): Because you don't actually care about winning

[TopSecret]

My view: All decks are metagame decks.  There is no such thing as a hate deck.   There is no such thing as the 'best' deck, in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time.

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

Only if those suppositions are true.  See bullet 5 and 6 in my 6 point quoted  list mid-thread.  I don't believe these suppositions to be true.  I have plenty of evidence to the contrary.  

So, are you going put forth your evidence to the contrary?
I checked your list mid-thread, but could find no such evidence.

I hope you are not suggesting that your response to my post will arrive in four months,
because, with all due respect, I doubt I will still care by then.

[Smmenen]

My view: All decks are metagame decks.  There is no such thing as a hate deck.   There is no such thing as the 'best' deck, in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time.

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

Only if those suppositions are true.  See bullet 5 and 6 in my 6 point quoted  list mid-thread.  I don't believe these suppositions to be true.  I have plenty of evidence to the contrary.   

So, are you going put forth your evidence to the contrary?
I checked your list mid-thread, but could find no such evidence.

I hope you are not suggesting that your response to my post will arrive in four months,
because, with all due respect, I doubt I will still care by then.

The evidence to the contrary is the complete lack of evidence in support of your contention.   There is absolutely no good evidence that 'best' decks are somehow more flexible or less metagame sensitive than decks often referred to as 'hate' decks.  All decks retool themselves, not just Null Rod decks.   That's because magic decks, like magic metagames, are constantly evolving.   

***

Human beings are meaning making machines.    Unlike other animals, people have drive to seek coherence and meaning.   And one of the primary vehicles for creating meaning is through narrative.   We subscribe to a host of narratives, about ourselves, our world, causality, etc.  The whole idea of the self -- of identity -- is an individual narrative.   Community is also a narrative.  It's a story about who we are collectively.

The idea that there are decks that are somehow less flexible or that Null Rod is a hate card is a product of a broader narrative of magic and Vintage.  It's a meaning-making narrative that organizes and provides false coherence to the world of magic, by dividing Vintage into several categories.  Because of our experiences as magic players, most of us come to certain ways of understanding Magic, shared narratives about the game and the Vintage format.    It's our experience -- an epistemic practice -- that makes this formulations plausible.   Thus, the idea of an 'objective' best deck, or of the 'hate' deck that preys on the best deck, or the characteristics of these decks is such a narrative.   But it's a false narrative.

It's no different than the narrative that people outside of Vintage have about Vintage, that Vintage is a format of turn one kills and mostly luck-based.   In fact, I believe that this is a narrative that non-eternal players use to justify their lack of engagement with Vintage.  But vintage players also have their false narratives.  And bullets 1-6 are a big part of one such. 

[TopSecret]

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

The evidence to the contrary is the complete lack of evidence in support of your contention.   There is absolutely no good evidence that 'best' decks are somehow more flexible or less metagame sensitive than decks often referred to as 'hate' decks.  All decks retool themselves, not just Null Rod decks.   That's because magic decks, like magic metagames, are constantly evolving.    

I think this is all true, but it doesn't address what I suggested.

I suggested that the 'best' deck exists in a recognizable form longer than a 'metagame' or 'hate' deck in a given metagame.
Because of this, I think the terms 'best' deck, 'metagame', or 'hate' deck are somewhat useful for the sake of communication, not necessarily for their accuracy.
The idea of a deck existing in a recognizable form is actually pretty important to the above,
since the usage of a the terms 'best' deck and 'metagame' deck are both subject to the perception of the people that use them.
Because the usage and perception of such terms is dependent on the perception of those that use and hear/read them,
I do not think proving 'best' deck, 'metagame', or 'hate' decks as illusory would be that useful
since it would not address the core issue of players' tendency to oversimplify Magic the Gathering.

I also think that the 'best' deck has a tendency to retool itself less than a 'metagame' or 'hate' deck in a given metagame.
This lesser degree of retooling is not optimal in terms of deck building, but it is a tendency in Vintage.
Factors such as a lack of skill in deck building, laziness, verbatim net-decking of the perceived 'best' deck, and different priorities in the allocation mental resources probably all play into this to some extent. If you could disprove this, I would find it very interesting, but I personally have no interest in doing the footwork to get the statistics to determine to what degree certain decks retool themselves over time.

[Diakonov]

Note: TopSecret posted right before I was going to.  I don't have the motivation to go through and edit what I wrote, so I'm sorry if anything comes across as redundant.

My view: All decks are metagame decks.  There is no such thing as a hate deck.   There is no such thing as the 'best' deck, in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time.

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

Only if those suppositions are true.  See bullet 5 and 6 in my 6 point quoted  list mid-thread.  I don't believe these suppositions to be true.  I have plenty of evidence to the contrary.  

So, are you going put forth your evidence to the contrary?
I checked your list mid-thread, but could find no such evidence.

I hope you are not suggesting that your response to my post will arrive in four months,
because, with all due respect, I doubt I will still care by then.

The evidence to the contrary is the complete lack of evidence in support of your contention.   There is absolutely no good evidence that 'best' decks are somehow more flexible or less metagame sensitive than decks often referred to as 'hate' decks.  All decks retool themselves, not just Null Rod decks.   That's because magic decks, like magic metagames, are constantly evolving.

How does a lack of evidence for one contention translate to evidence for the other?  

As to flexibility and metagame sensitivity:

It depends a lot more on the archetype.  For certain strategies to work, you have no choice but to allocate a certain portion of your deck towards achieving that goal.  For example, as is often discussed here at TMD, decks such as Tezz are nearly identical, save for around 10 cards or so.  But, in order for that strategy to function properly, you need the skeleton of that deck to look a certain way, which is the explanation for this.  You must have moxen, Forces, tutors, tutor targets, etc.

The key is that this is a reliable skeleton, rather than deck, that has been successful for years, namely because these cards share a powerful (!) synergy with one another.

The Fish strategy, on the other hand, while unchanging in philosophy, does have a tendency to vary more frequently when it comes to the actual composition of the deck.  This is in large part due to the printing of new cards, but also because Fish is a very reactionary strategy that is highly dependent on how the current metagame looks; more so, I would argue, than drain archetypes.  Consider Fish to be the vines which climb the oaken sides of the dominant control or combo strategy in the jungle known as...Metagame [/facetious]

So, there are two ways we can approach this question of "flexibility."  In a sense, you could say that Fish, as an archetype, is more flexible because the strategy has so many different cards to choose from to perform various annoying obstructions as it contours to whatever is considered to be the dominant strategy.  If we are talking about decks, on the other hand, you might say that Fish decks are not flexible, for exactly the same reasons.  It is semantics.

While drain decks do have to retool themselves, they are less capable of doing so because of their fairly rigid skeleton.  But, as it turns out, they apparently do not need to retool themselves as much as Fish decks do, since they always seem to perform well anyway, given the robust skeleton.  It is not unlike certain species evolving at a slower rate than others, due to the fact that their current structure is apparently well suited to withstanding changes in environment, like the cockroach.

When people refer to the "best deck," of course I would think of Tezzeret, because the core of that deck is easy to recognize and has dominated for a long period of time with minimal changes to its structure when compared to decks that exist around it.

Hopefully I've helped to unravel this argument enough to show that it was largely a miscommunication.  

EDIT:

The following is an unrelated response to an earlier post, just to avoid confusion. 

So, to reconsider your hypo, if you were to discover a deck that perfomed best among all of the possible decks in existence, that deck would quickly become weak, because the decks that it beats would go away and the decks that it loses to would grow as a proportion of the real field.  It would become rock in a paper metagame.  And then the pilot would either have to adjust or play scissors, and thus the metagame dynamic emerges and constantly evolves.   

I would agree that this is how it would work if Magic translated nicely to Rock/Paper/Scissors.  However, I feel that in Vintage, the rock happens to be a really tough rock, and even paper can only reliably beat it if it bribes the rest of the format by handing out scissors to everyone else in exchange for thicker paper.

[Smmenen]

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

The evidence to the contrary is the complete lack of evidence in support of your contention.   There is absolutely no good evidence that 'best' decks are somehow more flexible or less metagame sensitive than decks often referred to as 'hate' decks.  All decks retool themselves, not just Null Rod decks.   That's because magic decks, like magic metagames, are constantly evolving.    

I think this is all true, but it doesn't address what I suggested.

I suggested that the 'best' deck exists in a recognizable form longer than a 'metagame' or 'hate' deck in a given metagame.

Because of this, I think the terms 'best' deck, 'metagame', or 'hate' deck are somewhat useful for the sake of communication, not necessarily for their accuracy.

See, I don't.  While I understand what people are saying, it's also clear to me that these terms suggest the wrong ideas.    It leads to subtle biases, misperceptions, and bad judgments.    The narratives have implications, and those implications are wrong.   See number 5 and 6 in my mid-thread list.   These distinctions create filters for how we process information, and they create subtle biases that contaminate our deck selection process, our evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of archetypes in the metagame, and so on.

The idea of a deck existing in a recognizable form is actually pretty important to the above,
since the usage of a the terms 'best' deck and 'metagame' deck are both subject to the perception of the people that use them.
Because the usage and perception of such terms is dependent on the perception of those that use and hear/read them,
I do not think proving 'best' deck, 'metagame', or 'hate' decks as illusory would be that useful
since it would not address the core issue of players' tendency to oversimplify Magic the Gathering.

I also think that the 'best' deck has a tendency to retool itself less than a 'metagame' or 'hate' deck in a given metagame.
This lesser degree of retooling is not optimal in terms of deck building, but it is a tendency in Vintage.
Factors such as a lack of skill in deck building, laziness, verbatim net-decking of the perceived 'best' deck, and different priorities in the allocation mental resources probably all play into this to some extent. If you could disprove this, I would find it very interesting, but I personally have no interest in doing the footwork to get the statistics to determine to what degree certain decks retool themselves over time.

In my opinion, people who advance a claim have the burden of proving their claim.   Now, I don't expect them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I at least expect some evidence to be advanced.

In this case, the claim is always advanced without evidence.  That's because it's assumed.  It's assumed because it's part of a common, if not dominant, narrative -- a shared understanding of Vintage.   

Note: TopSecret posted right before I was going to.  I don't have the motivation to go through and edit what I wrote, so I'm sorry if anything comes across as redundant.

My view: All decks are metagame decks.  There is no such thing as a hate deck.   There is no such thing as the 'best' deck, in some abstract sense, beyond statistical performance in the metagame during a defined period of time.

Well, the 'best' deck is usually the deck that exists in an easily recognizable form in a given metagame for the longest time relative to the other decks.
The best deck typically has to be adjusted less than the other decks.

Metagame or 'hate' decks typically either have to adjust and retool themselves themselves constantly or only recognizably exist for short periods during a given metagame.

The above makes these terms useful.

Only if those suppositions are true.  See bullet 5 and 6 in my 6 point quoted  list mid-thread.  I don't believe these suppositions to be true.  I have plenty of evidence to the contrary.   

So, are you going put forth your evidence to the contrary?
I checked your list mid-thread, but could find no such evidence.

I hope you are not suggesting that your response to my post will arrive in four months,
because, with all due respect, I doubt I will still care by then.

The evidence to the contrary is the complete lack of evidence in support of your contention.   There is absolutely no good evidence that 'best' decks are somehow more flexible or less metagame sensitive than decks often referred to as 'hate' decks.  All decks retool themselves, not just Null Rod decks.   That's because magic decks, like magic metagames, are constantly evolving.

How does a lack of evidence for one contention translate to evidence for the other? 

I explained in the next paragraph why I think that people have this false belief: it's a product of the normal experience of most Vintage players, that experience being an epistemic practice that naturally leads to this conclusion.

However, the lack of evidence for something is not proof of its absence, but the burden of proof has to be on someone who is making the affirmative claim, unless they wish to make the claim on the basis of unscientific principles, such as faith.   People are making an assertion, and I'm saying: prove it.   

BTW, you never addressed my response to your thought experiment.  Can I assume that my response answered it?

As to flexibility and metagame sensitivity:

It depends a lot more on the archetype.  For certain strategies to work, you have no choice but to allocate a certain portion of your deck towards achieving that goal.  For example, as is often discussed here at TMD, decks such as Tezz are nearly identical, save for around 10 cards or so.  But, in order for that strategy to function properly, you need the skeleton of that deck to look a certain way, which is the explanation for this.  You must have moxen, Forces, tutors, tutor targets, etc.

The key is that this is a reliable skeleton, rather than deck, that has been successful for years, namely because these cards share a powerful (!) synergy with one another.

How does that prove that Tezzeret decks are less metagame sensitive than, say, BUG fish? 

The Fish strategy, on the other hand, while unchanging in philosophy, does have a tendency to vary more frequently when it comes to the actual composition of the deck.

And your evidence for this?   Asserting something to be true does not make it true.

 This is in large part due to the printing of new cards, but also because Fish is a very reactionary strategy that is highly dependent on how the current metagame looks; more so, I would argue, than drain archetypes.  Consider Fish to be the vines which climb the oaken sides of the dominant control or combo strategy in the jungle known as...Metagame [/facetious]

I understand your metaphor, and I get that this is a widely shared presumption, but I think it's false.  And, again, asserting something doesn't make it true.  Show me the statistical evidence.  Show me deck design composition from tournaments over time.   

So, there are two ways we can approach this question of "flexibility."  In a sense, you could say that Fish, as an archetype, is more flexible because the strategy has so many different cards to choose from to perform various annoying obstructions as it contours to whatever is considered to be the dominant strategy.  If we are talking about decks, on the other hand, you might say that Fish decks are not flexible, for exactly the same reasons.  It is semantics.

While drain decks do have to retool themselves, they are less capable of doing so because of their fairly rigid skeleton. 

Hiromichi Itou's list disproves this.  He ran a highly metagamed Tezzeret deck.  He didn't run many of the sacred cows that one might think would be necessary in a Tez list. 

But, as it turns out, they apparently do not need to retool themselves as much as Fish decks do, since they always seem to perform well anyway, given the robust skeleton. 

Again, and again, you assume what you conclude.   What about the alternative, and in my view, far more accurate hypotheiss: The reason Drain decks perform well is because they continue to retool themselves to do so.   See Hiromichi Itou's list.

It is not unlike certain species evolving at a slower rate than others, due to the fact that their current structure is apparently well suited to withstanding changes in environment, like the cockroach.

When people refer to the "best deck," of course I would think of Tezzeret, because the core of that deck is easy to recognize and has dominated for a long period of time with minimal changes to its structure when compared to decks that exist around it.

Again, arguing without data.   The most recent bimonthly vintage metagame report does not show Tezzeret dominance.   And, as I will show from the Sept-Oct report, it doesn't show Tezzeret dominance either.    So, I'm really curious where this bold assertion, apparently disconnected from data, is coming from?

Actually, I'm not, because I know where it is coming from.  It's, again, perception, and perceptual salience.   

Perception =/ reality.

That's perhaps the most important message I have for the false ideas in this thread. 


Hopefully I've helped to unravel this argument enough to show that it was largely a miscommunication. 
[/quote]

[Diakonov]

BTW, you never addressed my response to your thought experiment.  Can I assume that my response answered it?

Hah, yeah I actually started adding a response in my last post, and apparently finished editing it right after you posted.  It's directly above, now.  Although, be warned, as it is wrought with perception.

As to the recent response...

I do not have data.  Maybe one day I will find it.  For now I have to rely only on my lowly perceptions.

Also, as to Tezz's dominance, I honestly have not kept up with the recent top 8 finishes.  My point wasn't to try and say whether or not Tezz is currently dominant, though, just my qualifications for what I might refer to as the "best deck."  Consider my point of view to be from three months ago, in this case.

I may address more of your post tomorrow, but I am spent for the night.

[BC]

Here is some PURELY ANECDOTAL evidence supporting the relative permanence of blue control decks (sometimes referred to as the “best” deck) compared to fish-type decks (sometimes called “hate” or “metagame” decks).  In 2006, a blue control deck won the Vintage Championships, while a single fish-type deck made the top 8.  In 2009, a blue control deck also won the Vintage Championships, while a single fish-type deck made the top 8.

Blue Control:

2006 – Travis Spero – Meandeck Gifts

2 Flooded Strand
5 Island
3 Polluted Delta
1 Tolarian Academy
2 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island
1 Darksteel Colossus
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Black Lotus
4 Brainstorm
1 Burning Wish
1 Chain of Vapor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Fact or Fiction
4 Force of Will
4 Gifts Ungiven
1 Lotus Petal
1 Mana Crypt
4 Mana Drain
1 Mana Vault
4 Merchant Scroll
2 Misdirection
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Rebuild
1 Recoup
1 Sol Ring
1 Time Walk
1 Tinker
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth’s Will


2009 - Itou Hiromichi – Tezz

2 Flooded Strand
2 Island
1 Library of Alexandria
3 Polluted Delta
1 Swamp
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island
4 Dark Confidant
1 Inkwell Leviathan
1 Magus of the Unseen
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Black Lotus
1 Brainstorm
1 Chain of Vapor
1 Darkblast
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Fact or Fiction
1 Fire/Ice
4 Force of Will
1 Hurkyll’s Recall
1 Mana Crypt
4 Mana Drain
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Misdirection
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Rack and Ruin
2 Sensei’s Divining Top
1 Sol Ring
1 Tezzeret the Seeker
1 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Time Vault
1 Time Walk
1 Tinker
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Voltaic Key
1 Yawgmoth’s Will

The two lists have 40 identical cards, even with all the new card printings from 2006-2009, as well as the restriction of Brainstorm, Gifts, and Merchant Scroll.  Some (me) would say that these are two variations of the same deck.

Meanwhile, the fish:

2006 – Paul Nicolo – UWB Fish
2009 – John Donovan – GW Beats

I'm not going to lay out the decklists, but these decks have 5 identical cards (1 Strip Mine, 4 Wasteland).  To be fair, the two decks don't even share many colors, but this is also a very important point.  In 2006, there was not a viable GW deck.  In 2009, UWB Fish is essentially nonexistent.  Whether due to new card printings or as a reaction to the other decks in the metagame, one deck was present at one time, while the other was present at a different time.  The two decks don't even have Null Rod in common, even though it is a staple for many fish decks, especially now.  Just like many other cards commonly utilized in fish decks, Null Rod is better in some metagames than others.  In 2006, it was not as good as it is now.  During the Gush/Gro fiasco it was barely worth even considering.   FOW, Ancestral, Yawg Will, Tinker, etc. do not have the same fluctuations in power, at least not nearly as much.

[TopSecret]

The evidence to the contrary is the complete lack of evidence in support of your contention.   There is absolutely no good evidence that 'best' decks are somehow more flexible or less metagame sensitive than decks often referred to as 'hate' decks.  All decks retool themselves, not just Null Rod decks.   That's because magic decks, like magic metagames, are constantly evolving.    

I think this is all true, but it doesn't address what I suggested.

I suggested that the 'best' deck exists in a recognizable form longer than a 'metagame' or 'hate' deck in a given metagame.

Because of this, I think the terms 'best' deck, 'metagame', or 'hate' deck are somewhat useful for the sake of communication, not necessarily for their accuracy.

See, I don't.  While I understand what people are saying, it's also clear to me that these terms suggest the wrong ideas.    It leads to subtle biases, misperceptions, and bad judgments.    The narratives have implications, and those implications are wrong.   See number 5 and 6 in my mid-thread list.   These distinctions create filters for how we process information, and they create subtle biases that contaminate our deck selection process, our evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of archetypes in the metagame, and so on.

Perhaps I am not being clear. Once again, I am not arguing against anything that you suggest in your bulleted list mid-thread.

I am addressing what you have said here:

I will continue to criticize and call out the use of those terms, when and where I see them used.   I think they are misleading and lead to a number of misconceptions about deck design and construction in Vintage.  I also think that these can be harmful because they lead to deck selection biases.

I am saying these subtle biases, misperceptions, and bad judgments are more a fault of how players oversimplify Magic the Gathering than they are the fault the terms
and that trying to target the use of such words as incorrect is not that useful because it does not address players' tendency to oversimplify Magic the Gathering.
Players have oversimplified Magic the Gathering since it's inception and I think they will continue to do so whether or not you successfully deter the use of the terms 'best' deck, 'metagame', or 'hate' deck. Such oversimplifications will simply manifest themselves in a new way.

I think these words are useful for communication while still being illusory, like most words. If you want to disagree on that, I don't mind. These words are perhaps not useful for you.
However, they do help people to communicate using a superficial distinction among decks in conversation. This is useful for some people. Otherwise, these words would not exist.
This is perhaps not useful for your ends, but it is useful for those that use these terms to communicate.

I am not suggesting that these terms are useful because of their accuracy nor am I suggesting that any of the premises you have listed mid-thread are accurate,
which is why that list of points is irrelevant to our conversation.

Given that you have not addressed what I am saying for a second time, I think perhaps we are experiencing a communication error.

In my opinion, people who advance a claim have the burden of proving their claim.   Now, I don't expect them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I at least expect some evidence to be advanced.

In this case, the claim is always advanced without evidence.  That's because it's assumed.  It's assumed because it's part of a common, if not dominant, narrative -- a shared understanding of Vintage.  

I'm not really sure what you mean by the word 'evidence' here.
If you are suggesting that statistical data or something tangible, outside of logical discourse, should be brought forward in this thread, I do not see why you are suggesting this.
We are engaging in a logical discourse, as this is a internet forum for such discussion.
As such, I do not think the burden of producing any evidence beyond written, logical assertions lies with anyone here.
If you would like to produce some statistical data to back up your claims, I would not mind,
but you have not done so, so asking me to do so on an internet forum meant for written, logical discussion is not very reasonable.

Perhaps this is some preference that you have brought from some other mode of communication?

I have said why I think you are incorrect. You have said why you think I am incorrect.
If neither of us believes the other's points to be sufficient in proving their case and neither of us can bring forth any more claims that will further the discussion,
perhaps it is just better that we both agree to disagree and call it a day.

[Smmenen]

Here is some PURELY ANECDOTAL evidence

Yep.

Meanwhile, the fish:

2006 – Paul Nicolo – UWB Fish
2009 – John Donovan – GW Beats

I'm not going to lay out the decklists, but these decks have 5 identical cards (1 Strip Mine, 4 Wasteland).  

Um, so you are trying to show that Fish is more metagame flexible by saying that The deck went from UWB to GW??

GW Beats is not a Fish deck.

That would be like if I were showing you how Gifts has changed over the years by showing you:

1) 2006 Travis Spero - Meandeck Gifts
2) 2008 Paul Mastriano -- TPS

They are totally different archetypes.     Sure, they share some cards, like maybe null rods or Tendrils, but they are totally different archetypes.


GW beats = Beats deck.  UBW FIsh = Fish deck.


  

The evidence to the contrary is the complete lack of evidence in support of your contention.   There is absolutely no good evidence that 'best' decks are somehow more flexible or less metagame sensitive than decks often referred to as 'hate' decks.  All decks retool themselves, not just Null Rod decks.   That's because magic decks, like magic metagames, are constantly evolving.    

I think this is all true, but it doesn't address what I suggested.

I suggested that the 'best' deck exists in a recognizable form longer than a 'metagame' or 'hate' deck in a given metagame.

Because of this, I think the terms 'best' deck, 'metagame', or 'hate' deck are somewhat useful for the sake of communication, not necessarily for their accuracy.

See, I don't.  While I understand what people are saying, it's also clear to me that these terms suggest the wrong ideas.    It leads to subtle biases, misperceptions, and bad judgments.    The narratives have implications, and those implications are wrong.   See number 5 and 6 in my mid-thread list.   These distinctions create filters for how we process information, and they create subtle biases that contaminate our deck selection process, our evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of archetypes in the metagame, and so on.

Perhaps I am not being clear. Once again, I am not arguing against anything that you suggest in your bulleted list mid-thread.

But you are.   You claimed that hate decks leave the format more quickly.   That was one of my bullets, that hate decks are somehow more metagame responsive.

I am addressing what you have said here:

I will continue to criticize and call out the use of those terms, when and where I see them used.   I think they are misleading and lead to a number of misconceptions about deck design and construction in Vintage.  I also think that these can be harmful because they lead to deck selection biases.

I am saying these subtle biases, misperceptions, and bad judgments are more a fault of how players oversimplify Magic the Gathering than they are the fault the terms
and that trying to target the use of such words as incorrect is not that useful because it does not address players' tendency to oversimplify Magic the Gathering.

I think these words are useful for communication while still being illusory, like most words. If you want to disagree on that, I don't mind. These words are perhaps not useful for you.
However, they do help people to communicate using a superficial distinction among decks in conversation. This is useful for some people. Otherwise, these words would not exist.
This is perhaps not useful for your ends, but it is useful for those that use these terms to communicate.

Of course there will be superficial distinctions that people make to communicate.  I'm not saying that these are just inaccurate.  I'm saying that they are actively harmful.  

In my opinion, people who advance a claim have the burden of proving their claim.   Now, I don't expect them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I at least expect some evidence to be advanced.

In this case, the claim is always advanced without evidence.  That's because it's assumed.  It's assumed because it's part of a common, if not dominant, narrative -- a shared understanding of Vintage.  

I'm not really sure what you mean by the word 'evidence' here.
If you are suggesting that statistical data or something tangible, outside of logical discourse, should be brought forward in this thread, I do not see why you are suggesting this.

[/quote]

This isn't an argument over semantics or metaphysics.   Claims are being advanced.  Why logical reasoning is certainly helpful, it's not the only form of evidence that can or should be admitted here.  

Claims are being made that can only be proven or established (regardless of the standard of proof) through NOT logical reasoning, but statistical evidence.   This isn't a math question that can be reasoned through.    People are making claims that Fish decks and the Best Deck have certain measureable traits.  OF COURSE the burden of proof is on the person who makes those claims, as you did.   When people make claims, others can call, as I have, bullshit, unless they are proven, at least, by some evidence.   So far as I  have seen, you (and others) have produced no evidence whatsoever.  

We are engaging in a logical discourse, as this is a internet forum for such discussion.
As such, I do not think the burden of producing any evidence beyond written, logical assertions lies with anyone here.

Again, this is not a strictly logical debate.  The issue isn't whether 2+2 = 4, something that can be determined through mathmatical logic.   There are claims being advanced that, if believed, need logical support.  In this case, that logical support can only come in the way of data.  

If you would like to produce some statistical data to back up your claims, I would not mind,
but you have not done so, so asking me to do so on a forum meant for written, logical discussion is not very reasonable.

Of course it's reasonable.

Let's say you claimed that Deck X was the best deck in the format.  I would ask you to prove it through statistics.  

You claim that certain decks are more metagame sensitive.  I say prove it.   No different.   Metagame data can be used to support -- or not support - either claim.

[BC]

GW Beats is not a Fish deck.

If you say so.

Um, so you are trying to show that Fish is more metagame flexible by saying that The deck went from UWB to GW??...

GW beats = Beats deck.  UBW FIsh = Fish deck.

Fair enough.  Let's say we compare Nicolo's list to the Selkie list in the first post.  If you don't count mana, the common cards are 3 Meddling Mage, Ancestral, and Time Walk.  I'm sure Dark Confidant would be in there too if the current fish list we were using ran black.  The 2006 list ran things like Aether Vial, Chalice, Ninja of the Deep Hours, Stormscape Apprentice, and Voidmage Prodigy.  You just don't see those cards that much these days.  The point I'm trying to make is that while blue control decks might swap out a few cards with every new set or B&R change, it's not uncommon for fish and other metagame decks to undergo a minor overhaul. 

[TopSecret]

Perhaps I am not being clear. Once again, I am not arguing against anything that you suggest in your bulleted list mid-thread.

But you are.   You claimed that hate decks leave the format more quickly.   That was one of my bullets, that hate decks are somehow more metagame responsive.

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.  

In all seriousness, could you please point out what I bolded above among these bullets which you posted.
I can't find what you are referencing. Perhaps I am somehow misreading this.
Or, perhaps you are talking about something else you have said, in which case I would like to know what you are referencing.

In any case, assuming we are on the same page here with what terms mean,
I do not think that hate decks existing for shorter periods of time makes them more 'metagame responsive'.
They are just as 'metagame responsive' as anything else when they are in a given metagame.

What exactly do you mean by 'metagame responsive'?

You claim that certain decks are more metagame sensitive.

Prove it.

Perhaps we are not on the same page with the terms being used?
If this is so, perhaps we need to agree exactly what we are talking about here in order to further the discussion.

Under the assumption that I understand what you are saying,
I do not equate a given deck being in a given metagame for a shorter time than another deck with the given deck being more 'metagame sensitive'.

Just what do you mean by 'metagame sensitive'? If you could define such terms for the purposes of this discussion, I would find it much easier to communicate with you.
Otherwise, I am just left to guess what you are saying, as terms like these have no common definition that I am aware of.

OF COURSE the burden of proof is on the person who makes those claims, as you did.   When people make claims, others can call, as I have, bullshit, unless they are proven, at least, by some evidence.   So far as I  have seen, you (and others) have produced no evidence whatsoever.

Yes, just as I have called bullshit on your claims. You have NOT produced any evidence whatsoever to prove your point.

Claims are being made that can only be proven or established (regardless of the standard of proof) through NOT logical reasoning, but statistical evidence.

I think, given this particular discussion, this is more or less true, which would lend to the idea that we should just agree to disagree.

If you would like to put forth statistical evidence for your point, you are more than welcome to.
However, you have NOT done so thus far. Hence, why I called bullshit on your claims.

[hitman]

I agree with the thought that there is a best deck conceptually and, at times, in our experience.  The closer a deck approximates the qualities of the conceptually best deck, the more it is the best deck in reality.  The fact that we have a banned and restricted lists in the game is evidence that there is a conceptual best.  As decks closer resemble this conceptual deck, governing bodies take action to balance the field by removing or restricting elements that help a deck resemble the ideal best deck.  If this were not the case, we wouldn't have a banned/restricted list in any format.  The question isn't whether a best deck can exist but whether the best performing decks are resembling this ideal best deck too closely. 

"Metagame" decks do exist because not all decks try to play an interactive game.  With that in mind, we know there is a distinction between decks that do play a disruptive role and some decks that try to just sidestep that strategy and "go for the throat".  Belcher is an example of a deck that's not necessarily a metagame deck.  It's a deck that simply tries to kill its opponent before they can do anything about it.  It eschews interactivity.  In order to metagame, you would have to interact with your opponent in some fashion.  I'm not trying to say that decks like Belcher don't interact in any form but that they clearly are on another part of the spectrum of interactivity.  They clearly choose a more aggressive stance in order to sidestep much of the metagame considerations that go into other decks.  If that's true there must be two ends of the spectrum, one that considers other decks in the format to a great degree and plays cards in order to interact with them profitably and another that tries not to interact in any form and skips worrying about the metagame due to the shear speed and power of the deck.  By this we can know that not all decks try to be metagame decks.  We know some try a different approach.  Metagame decks, in the sense that Steve is explaining, seem ubiquitous because the vast majority of decks in any format conform to his description.

The reason Ravager was neutered in Standard was because it too closely resembled a conceptual best deck that didn't allow enough equal playing ground strategically speaking relative to the field it was in.  The question isn't whether a best deck exists but what is the best deck conceptually and how can we more clearly identify the traits of a deck that make it resemble this conceptual best deck closest.  Powerhouses like Trix and Ravager were clearly the best decks in their day.  Instead of wasting time over terminology, we should spend our time discovering the traits of a "best" deck.  The point of these forums isn't to argue about terminology but to come to a closer understanding of the game we play in order to properly translate that knowledge into wins.
 
In response to the opening post, people are drawn to play metagame decks because they think they have a grasp on the flow of the metagame they're in and try to capitalize on this perceived knowledge.  The problem with predicting metagames is that it's largely speculative in nature and you can't usually predict things like metagames accurately because you don't have enough information to determine the outcomes because of the unknown variables.  Metagame decks are weaker by nature because they aren't trying to break the rules of Magic like a truly powerful deck.  They're trying to efficiently interact with the metagame they exist in and sacrifice power to do so.  With this in mind, you would have to have a really good grasp of the tournament you were about to go into to have a good reason to play a metagame deck.  Powerful decks break the rules of Magic by getting more out of their resources than their opponents.  I wouldn't recommend playing a metagame deck to a general public because of this.