"Meta-less" format?
The Kitchen Table forum
Posted on Dec. 2, 2023, 7:35 p.m. by legendofa
TL;DR: Brew-centric meta that has a very fluid metagame.
First disclaimer: This idea will be unworkable in any large-scale way. One playgroup, one LGS, or maybe a partnership between two LGSs is as big as I see this "format" getting.
Second disclaimer: I'm running this thought experiment for my own interests, and this is the first time I'm pitching it, so there's probably some details that need to get shaken out.
I like brewing, and I don't like netdecking. Of course, netdecking is a valid strategy for a reason: it delivers decks that are proven to win straight into your hands. You get to use the best decks made by the best deckbuilders. But over time, I've gotten to prefer something more original, something with more personal touches. Sure, EDH exists, but I've never been able to take that entirely seriously; memeing with style is more important than winning when I sit down at a Commander table. I want to win with my 60-card brews. A format full of meme decks and chaos is good for a night with friends, but sometimes I want a more meaningful victory. So I've indulged myself (how many times has the word "I" appeared so far?) in coming up with a concept for a 60-card constructed meta that's constantly changing, while still appropriate for a tournament setting.
This template can be applied to any 60-card constructed format. The first rule is that any deck very similar to a deck with a meta share greater than 0.3% (figure subject to change) on a database such as mtggoldfish.com or mtgtop8.com is banned. Yup, we're banning a lot of entire decks right off the top. "Very similar" is going to be anything that shares 67% or more of its cards with a tournament-ranked deck. That means that if a 60 main/15 sideboard deck shares more than 50 of its cards with a tournament-ranked deck, it's not allowed. Modern Scam and Crashing Cascade, Legacy Reanimator and Initiative, Pioneer Izzet Phoenix and Mono-Green Ramp, all cut down. The goal is to encourage unique creations that aren't simply meta-defining decks with some minor changes.
The second part of the "meta-less" template is that any deck that wins two tournaments in a row, or three out of five consecutive tournaments, will have one or two key cards banned for the next two tournaments. If a single deck or two consistently wins, the format will begin to adapt around those decks. Since the intent is to have a meta that's dynamic to the point of amorphous, temporarily banning key cards from dominant decks will continually reset the meta and encourage new brews.
Other than these changes, the tournament format and structure remains the same: players advance or get eliminated, prizes and points are awarded, and so on. It's a completely typical tournament, just with a prohibition on high-tier and dominant decks.
I realize this idea is pretty out there, and it's catering entirely to my tastes and preferences. The deck roster will be constantly changing, and it'll probably take a lot of energy to keep up. But since my goal for this thought experiment is to create a tournament structure that deliberately will never have a well-defined metagame, I think this would work on a small scale.
Does anyone have any thoughts, suggestions, or criticism? Would anyone else be interested in a meta-less, brew-centric tournament structure?
Epidilius Sure. Flipping through mtggoldfish's Modern meta, page 2 is all under the 0.3% threshold (which was an arbitrary cutoff). There's some old classics, like Abzan CoCo, 8-Rack and 8-Whack, and NeoBrand. Plus even more outside stuff like Lantern Control, Turbo Fog, and whatever this and this are, as a couple of my brews. There are more decks like these floating around the site. Pretty much every format outside of Pauper and Vintage (that I know the rules of...) tell the same story.
December 2, 2023 11:50 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
Definitely not something I'd be interested in as brewing decks is not something I enjoy. I do however have a couple of opinions on the rules.
For the sake of fairness; I'd be more a proponent of a percentage of non-land cards being the same, than just a percentage of cards. Does this give an advantage to Dark Depths decks in formats that contain it? Yes, but I don't think that it will be as much of a problem as just starting control decks off with a 33% similarity and only allowing 26:25 ratio of "meta cards" compared to the 20-27% of aggro decks and them getting a 30-35:25 ratio.
Meta decks aren't actually a monolith in some older formats. Looking at Legacy Reanimator on MTGtop8 there are only about 10-12 non-land cards and 8 or so lands guaranteed to be in every reanimator deck. Every deck runs 4 of Entomb and 6-8 total between Reanimate and Animate Dead. Other than that the 3% of decks is split between Rakdos, Grixis, and Dimir. With Dimir being the least represented, so I could make an argument for the Legacy Reanimator deck that I borrow from my friend and I have run in tournaments not being a "meta deck" despite having the early, consistent, wins that are a hallmark of what people seem to dislike about "meta decks".
December 3, 2023 3:17 p.m.
Gidgetimer Thanks for the feedback! Especially since I guess you're outside the target audience, it does help.
I had thought about basing the "meta-similar" proportion on non-land cards, but I decided against it because... um... some reason. Looking over it again, I agree that the non-land proportion is a better metric.
Your input on older formats is helpful; I'm not at all familiar with the actual Legacy meta and was pretty quickly skimming the lists for obvious glaring problems with my idea. I'll have to make some adjustments for archetype vs. actual decklist. The core of Modern and Pauper decks tend to be pretty tight, in my experience, and Pioneer seems to be the same way, so that's what I was working off of.
I should probably say I haven't been in an organized tournament for quite some time, but I try to stay familiar with what's popular and successful. (Scam decks are awesome. If I didn't love 'em, I'd hate 'em.)
December 3, 2023 3:33 p.m.
Okay, I dug a little deeper into the Legacy Reanimator lists on mtgtop8.com, and target cards like Atraxa, Grand Unifier, Archon of Cruelty, Grief, and Griselbrand, and support cards like Dark Ritual and Dauthi Voidwalker show up in almost every deck, but in different proportions. Still, that's a pretty condensed and consistent core. It's easy enough to see which cards get played, but the "meta-similar" rule is going to need more sophistication.
December 3, 2023 3:55 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
Sure, no problem. To illustrate the second point, these two decks off of the first page of Legacy Reanimator decks on MTGtop8 contain only 24/75 same cards.
And even the Dimir one shares only 42 cards with Reanimator? I Hardly Know Her! which is an older list and the one I have taken to tournaments (I also have not been to tournaments in a while). The 42/75 overlap is despite being the same strategy in the same colors.
A better (though more labor intensive) way to enforce individuality would be to define "keystone cards" for decks and limit their use. A points list like Canadian Highlander uses might be what you use for this. Point cards (probably per occurrence in the brew since this is for 4-of formats) and give a point limit per deck. Since the implementation you are using is small scale anyway, maybe even roll in the banning of cards from winning decks via community points that will diminish. Maybe like the community puts a point on one card (that isn't a basic land) out of the tournament winning deck and community pointed cards lose 1 point after 2 consecutive weeks of not appearing in the winning deck.
(post took a while, so your most recent comment wasn't up when I started this)
December 3, 2023 4:05 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #8
To Illustrate the point system thing maybe give each of the common targets 1 point, Animate Dead, Entomb, and Reanimate 2 points and something format defining like Force of Will 1 point, not based on any particular deck and a point budget of 20. None of the three decks would make that point budget as they have (in the order I mentioned them in my most recent post) 29, 38, and 29 points respectively. They would have to drop at least 1 target and 4 of the "central cards" in order to make the point budget. Points on the main list could be assigned and lowered/raised by some sort of committee on a quarterly basis based on what meta decks look like and how well the list is doing keeping "metaless" decks from looking like meta decks.
December 3, 2023 4:17 p.m.
That's an interesting idea. My concern is that every core format will needs its own points list. I think the next tack to take at this point is to start with one format and get a "proof of concept" run going, compare a points list to flat bans, and see what happens. Just need to start getting people on board for a trial run.
December 3, 2023 5 p.m.
sergiodelrio says... #10
I like Gidgetimer's input as well.
On a slightly different vector: What if the format was vintage/legacy with a very, very long banlist. Instead of going with "cardpool rule" + banlist. Someone needs to sit down, ban the OP cards generously (possibly even the money cards for the sake of being expensive), keep the list updated for new releases, and voila. Competitive kitchentable
Disclaimer - like legendofa I, too, am a desperate Johnny.
December 4, 2023 6:01 a.m. Edited.
legendofa My concern is that deck checking requires so much effort. Take your Infestation of Goblins and Rats deck. I don't think it meets your cutoff threshold. Of the 75 cards, only 23 are not "meta". The mana base, the hand disruption, the sweeper, flicker, and counter are all cards played in top decks.
If we were playing your anti-meta format and you played Thoughtseize I would be very confused.
December 4, 2023 11:19 a.m.
Epidilius The intent is to avoid matching one single deck, not all cards that appear in any meta deck. To continue the Infestation of Goblins and Rats deck example, it shares 9/75 cards with the Rakdos Scam deck, with six of those being nonland. Outside of lands, it shares just two cards with Azorius Control lists, and eight with Thoracle Spoils (which is below the 0.3% meta share cutoff anyway).
This measurement is a comparison of two entire decks against each other, not a card-by-card "is this in any meta deck?" The intent is to cut back on the number of dominant decklists, not prevent their individual cards from being played. You could still keep the Rakdos Scam evoke + reanimate core, if you changed up the support and control cards and sideboard (which will probably wnd up being changed anyway).
December 4, 2023 11:43 a.m.
Just play Penny Dreadful tbh. The format changes up very frequently and forces you to play with cards you otherwise wouldn't.
December 5, 2023 10:40 a.m.
Penny Dreadful gets its name from the format rule that you can only use cards worth 0.02 tix or less on MTGO. This means that every three months or so (one week after every standard rotation iirc), the format rotates as certain cards become more or less expensive. It's primarily a MTGO format due to the fact that the measure of card price is in tix, but you could still check on the format legality online and play accordingly in paper.
http://pennydreadfulmagic.com is the website; couldn't get it to hyperlink so you'll have to copy/paste.
December 5, 2023 1:30 p.m.
I'll have to take a good look at that, and see if anyone local can help me out. I can do a deep dive later, but how fast does it usually play, and what's the budget range for a decent paper deck? Just to get some ideas going.
December 5, 2023 7:38 p.m.
legendofa Truth be told, it's been a long time since I've even played Magic to begin with, so I couldn't give you a good estimate on how fast it plays (although it's often in the area of around Pioneer to Modern speed iirc), and for budget I'd check MTGGoldfish and look at the Penny Dreadful Meta for some ideas.
Epidilius says... #2
Is it even possible to make a deck that is sufficiently distinct from the top ~50 archetypes on mtggoldfish?
December 2, 2023 10:14 p.m.