Intellectual Property and Credit for Deckbuilding

[hi-val]

Fixed.

Seriously. A lot of Legacy players think a bit much of themselves, but you can apply that to the "Pros" too. Why the fuck does anybody care that you're good with magical cards? If I won a Pro Tour I would still put it on the bottom of my resume as "Strategy Games and Problem Solving", and hope they didn't ask too many questions.

I agree completely.

I have no idea where people get the asinine idea that I'm in any way comparing this format to Vintage. If I am, quote me please, otherwise plz stfu and don't put words in my mouth and straw man my arguments. Vintage is even less of a blip. Seriously, people who read "and VINTAGE IS BETAR THAN LEGAYEY" into my statement have a lot of defensiveness about their format to work out.

At the inception of the current format, the perception was Rochester >>> all. Now it's expanded into United States >>> all. Europe consistently mauls America in tournament attendance and frequency, but there's this idea that we're playing "real Legacy" here and that makes our national metagame better than theirs.

There's also this problem still in Legacy of "OMG I INVENTED THAT DECK" that every other format. has gotten over years ago. I don't care who invented the decks that I write about because nobody cares about who comes up with a deck (and I have received PMs about this before).

quick edit: a structural issue in Legacy is that many people look at it as a casual format. Casual players use its banned list. Vintage was looked at as the format where you can play yer Sol Rings and Lotus Petals and now Legacy has a significant portion of those people, sitting around the kitchen table and playing "legacy" decks. I don't know how this can be overcome or if it is even a problem but there's problems in signal-to-noise ratio when people think Legacy is for casual decks and then only consider it in that scope. The general perception of the format is that it is a boutique format, much like hockey is a boutique sport.

[frogboy]

There's also this problem still in Legacy of "OMG I INVENTED THAT DECK" that every other format. has gotten over years ago.

I never understood this nor have I recieved a satisfactory explanation of why people give a damn.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I never understood this nor have I recieved a satisfactory explanation of why people give a damn.

That's ridiculous. You might as well say that you don't understand why people would get upset if someone else is credited for winning a tournament that they had, in fact, won.

Deckbuilding is an aspect of this game. It's a skill that not everyone who plays competitively has, but there are those of us who enjoy this aspect just as much as the actual game play. And to be successful enough at this to create a deck (or decks) that others willingly copy and try to win tournaments with and to see your work either miscredited or not credited at all is obviously frustrating. Do you really fail to see where having your hard work and talent ignored is something that people give a damn about? I mean, I'm not about to commit seppuku or anything if someone tries to take credit for a deck of my design, but it's certainly something that I care about. Let's not all put on the emo music and pretend that we don't give a damn about anything because we're just that hardcore (except for giving a damn that people know that we don't give a damn so that they'll think we're cool and invite us to their birthday parties, at any rate).

[frogboy]

I have now recieved a satisfactory explanation.

(I'm serious. I never thought about it that way because I don't really do the whole deckbuilding thing.)

[hi-val]

But people don't really care who made deck X or deck Y. The only person that cares is the creator. It's not my job to track down, mention or care about who did what. Why is that? It has nothing to do with the deck. Knowing who squeezed it out doesn't make it play better, it doesn't solve problem matches and it doesn't win games. All it does is add to one person's ego when they get to put in their sig that they "invented" something.

The thing that got Vintage over it was the deck known as Control Slaver. It was "invented" in Europe, in a German tournament. An American player saw the list, tuned it and became a big proponent of the deck. He wrote prolifically about it and placed well at many events. There was transAtlantic flamewar that lasted for about a year about who "invented" the deck versus who "popularized" it and which was more important. The end result was that people spent time, emotions and effort into feeding this really inconsequential argument. Think how much they could have advanced the deck by testing and refining instead of squabbling over someone not mentioning the not-inventor-but-innovator of it! Thank God the community finally moved beyond demanding personal recognition.

Should everyone who sticks a new card in an established deck get a medal? Should we have some pedigree for each deck, listing worthy contributors? No, that's absurd. All I'm asking is that we care about patting one less person on the back, the creator of it.


to see your work either miscredited or not credited at all is obviously frustrating.

What a huge joke. I've been in the deck designing business for years in another format, and myself and the people around me have created several very good decks and innovations. I am not saying this to brag, I just want to give some backstory. Anyway, the greatest success behind personally winning with a deck is to see other people succeed with the same thing. I couldn't shake a shit if someone didn't give me or my team credit, as long as they were doing well with something that I know I made.

We don't disown our children when they have better jobs than we ever did. We take pride that something we created has been so successful. We don't stand up there at the graduation ceremony while our child walks by, being patted on the back for their success.

The greatest pride a deckbuilder can have is seeing their creations do well. Personal glory and recognition have no place in that structure.

When you see someone succeed with something that you created, you congratulate them, not demand attention.

Is there any proof that people are crediting themselves with something that other people designed? Does anyone actually listen to "I did that first"?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

But people don't really care who made deck X or deck Y. The only person that cares is the creator. It's not my job to track down, mention or care about who did what. Why is that? It has nothing to do with the deck. Knowing who squeezed it out doesn't make it play better, it doesn't solve problem matches and it doesn't win games. All it does is add to one person's ego when they get to put in their sig that they "invented" something.

The thing that got Vintage over it was the deck known as Control Slaver. It was "invented" in Europe, in a German tournament. An American player saw the list, tuned it and became a big proponent of the deck. He wrote prolifically about it and placed well at many events. There was transAtlantic flamewar that lasted for about a year about who "invented" the deck versus who "popularized" it and which was more important. The end result was that people spent time, emotions and effort into feeding this really inconsequential argument. Think how much they could have advanced the deck by testing and refining instead of squabbling over someone not mentioning the not-inventor-but-innovator of it!

Why does it matter if they test or refine the deck? Why should I care if it's advanced? Why is this better than pointless squabbling? What does it matter who wins what tournaments or what prizes? Why is anything anything? We're all going to die and turn to dust and be forgotten. Eventually no one will have any fucking clue what the card Ancestral Recall does or what the fuck a trading card game even is. Why don't we all just sit in a dark room eating magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music?

You don't care if the fruits of your labor get credited? That's fine. Other people do. It's not like anyone (except Roopey) is asking for eighty foot tall golden statues dedicated to them, but expecting to receive some recognition for innovating a deck is hardly unreasonable. If Vintage has "moved beyond" that, good for Vintage. Maybe when switching three cards is actually considering making a different deck that's a good call. In other formats, people to (rightly) want to be at least nominally credited.


Thank God the community finally moved beyond demanding personal recognition.

Yeah, communities where that happens turn out real great. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) I mean, what possible reason could there ever be to reward and acknowledge hard work and talent?


Should everyone who sticks a new card in an established deck get a medal? Should we have some pedigree for each deck, listing worthy contributors? No, that's absurd. All I'm asking is that we care about patting one less person on the back, the creator of it.

"You've already got two arms. I'm just asking that you have one less."

Good logic. Naturally, if something is reasonable, any possible extension of the same principle, no matter how seemingly illogical, must also be reasonable.


What a huge joke.

I don't think you're in on the joke.


I've been in the deck designing business for years in another format, and myself and the people around me have created several very good decks and innovations. I am not saying this to brag, I just want to give some backstory.

It's a good thing it wasn't to brag, then, as you've failed to say anything meaningful.


We don't disown our children when they have better jobs than we ever did. We take pride that something we created has been so successful. We don't stand up there at the graduation ceremony while our child walks by, being patted on the back for their success.

I'm sorry, are you confusing intellectual property with parenthood?

[Finn]

Thank God the community finally moved beyond demanding personal recognition. There are two parts to a GP win or the like: The deck and the pilot. Hi-val, deck design is the single biggest attraction this game holds for me. Seeing as how I will not be picking up a check for my efforts, I can bask in the warmth of the acknowledgement of my success. My father would call me a damned fool to allow another person to take that from me.

It seems to me that you feel that the pilot holds the brush while the deck is the canvas. I disagree, as I am sure any reasonable person would. It is the pilot who stands on the shoulders of the designer. If anyone could do it, if it didn't take years of experience to hone, if it did not require months of testing and tweaking, a total understanding of the format, an eye for interactions few can see, etc. then I might agree with you at some level. But this...
The greatest pride a deckbuilder can have is seeing their creations do well. Personal glory and recognition have no place in that structure....is antithetic to human nature. Do you really think the check is the reason the pros compete?

[Parcher]

I have no idea where people get the asinine idea that I'm in any way comparing this format to Vintage. If I am, quote me please, otherwise plz stfu and don't put words in my mouth and straw man my arguments. Vintage is even less of a blip. Seriously, people who read "and VINTAGE IS BETAR THAN LEGAYEY" into my statement have a lot of defensiveness about their format to work out.

I think this might find you guilty by association. You are a highly visible member of Team Meandeck. A group who while tolerated due to their obvious results in the Vintage community, is reviled in the "other" Eternal format for various reasons.

Excluding yourself, the ego it must take to proclaim that you know more about a deck and a format than dozens that quite literally created and maintain it is the hight of arrogance. Unfortunately, most Source members remember the myriad times your most vocal teammate has come to these boards, as well as others, to proclaim this very thing.


There's also this problem still in Legacy of "OMG I INVENTED THAT DECK" that every other format. has gotten over years ago. I don't care who invented the decks that I write about because nobody cares about who comes up with a deck (and I have received PMs about this before).

Again, the whole Meandeck thing. I can't buy the thought that Vintage members have forsaken their egos in deck naming when the most prominent group must insist on attaching their team name to every deck. No matter how small their actual involvement in creating it was. Another reason for the popular opinion that Vintage players change five cards in an existing deck, and they get to re-name it.

[frogboy]

A group who while tolerated due to their obvious results in the Vintage community, is reviled in the "other" Eternal format for various reasons.

o rly?

[herbig]

You are a highly visible member of Team Meandeck. A group who while tolerated due to their obvious results in the Vintage community, is reviled in the "other" Eternal format for various reasons.

Please elaborate on this topic.

[hi-val]

I'll be happy to take the discussion of deckbuilding credits to another thread if someone wants to create it; at this point though, I feel like I've said my piece on it. I'd like to respect frogboy's request that we keep things on topic.

Re: naming decks with my team name in front

That's been discussed before on TMD when we issued a formal statement on it, but I don't blame you if you missed it. Basically, we put it there to say "this is the version WE would be playing". We aren't assuming ownership of a deck, only endorsement. We don't claim that every idea we have is original, but when we release a deck variant that we have worked on, we think it's fair to distinguish it among other versions.


A group who while tolerated due to their obvious results in the Vintage community, is reviled in the "other" Eternal format for various reasons.

I didn't know you guys hated Mike Herbig so much. Does he know?

EDIT: could a mod perhaps split these posts into another topic on intellectual property?

and lol apparently Herbig knows now. What's it like being reviled?

[Parcher]

I sincerely hope that you are being facetious.

Since it's seems I can't indict the team in general without implicating members who should be obvious in their exclusion, I'll name names.

Smennen and the Toad.

Durand is the archetype of delusional, arrogant, internet-bullies. I don't know how or why he gains sway on forums, but I am certain that the majority of the Legacy populous hates him like no other. He is personally responsible for intentionally starting flame-wars, and then having the posters he trolled banned. He insists that any idea not his own is faulty, and if rebuffed, instantly resorts to insults.

Mendenian is not only the mouthpiece of Meandeck, he is one of it's founders. Now fortunately, he has not had much involvement in the Legacy format, but when he has it was a disaster. I hope that I need remind no one of the Trix fiasco here on the Source. The fact is, he is without a doubt the most cocky, overbearing, insulting, narcissistic, internet personality in the Eternal formats. Hell, THe Mana Drain, which he once ran, even decided that he should be banned.

My point being that these two specifically, (members of Meandeck) are indicative of the types who think that they are lords of their format. They attempt to reign supreme over internet discussion, and think that translates into skill at the game. The overt topic of this thread was regarding how wrong they are.

And regarding deck naming; How does using "your name to distinguish the deck from other versions" differ from any other naming convention? Parfait is very different than Wombat, though they are both MWC, and you should hear the amount of shit raised regarding that moniker.

[Tacosnape]

And regarding deck naming; How does using "your name to distinguish the deck from other versions" differ from any other naming convention? Parfait is very different than Wombat, though they are both MWC, and you should hear the amount of shit raised regarding that moniker.

Parfait and Wombat generally have slightly different strategies. I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but it's always seemed to me like a lot of times the name changes when the strategy changes.

My personal favorite naming bit (And watch me offend every moderator ever doing this and get banned and have dead puppies scattered on my lawn) We have better things to do, but I'm sure it could be arranged :P---frogboy is when teams throw their team name before a deck with like four or five cards difference in the entire list. Epic Storm doesn't really count here since the Long decktype was pretty new and innovative to Legacy at the time, but I mean things like Meandeck Oath and whatnot.

Being a member of the two most pathetic and lowest profile teams in existence, Team Laughing Hyena and Team Amazy Dayzee, I should begin doing this. Henceforth my 3C Goblin build with Ray of Revelation will be Hyena Goblins, my Salvagers list with Orim's Chants will be Amazy Salvagers, and my 4C Landstill with no wastelands will be called...um...Tacostill. I like that name.

[xsockmonkeyx]

my 4C Landstill with no wastelands will be called...um...Tacostill. I like that name.

"Landsnape" would sound more snappy IMO

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

My personal favorite naming bit (And watch me offend every moderator ever doing this and get banned and have dead puppies scattered on my lawn) is when teams throw their team name before a deck with like four or five cards difference in the entire list. Epic Storm doesn't really count here since the Long decktype was pretty new and innovative to Legacy at the time, but I mean things like Meandeck Oath and whatnot.

In the interests of fairness, I have to point out that hi-val did actually give a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

[Citrus-God]

Smennen and the Toad.

As arrogant as Smmenen is, he is a vintage genius, and theorist. I dont mind his arrogance, but being arrogant at something like Magic rather than Poker is such a waste of mental clarity.


Durand is the archetype of delusional, arrogant, internet-bullies.

Funny. If debating on SCG is like playing Poker, I trapped him in a position where I flopped a full house and he just has trips. I got him to debate with me on Threshold. Later, he whined and called me "the internet bully," claimed that "it's not cool to be sarcastic." I'm going to wait a bit and trap him in a Solidarity discussion.


I don't know how or why he gains sway on forums, but I am certain that the majority of the Legacy populous hates him like no other. He is personally responsible for intentionally starting flame-wars, and then having the posters he trolled banned. He insists that any idea not his own is faulty, and if rebuffed, instantly resorts to insults.

People get bored. When people have power, they also tend to abuse it.



Mendenian is not only the mouthpiece of Meandeck, he is one of it's founders. Now fortunately, he has not had much involvement in the Legacy format, but when he has it was a disaster. I hope that I need remind no one of the Trix fiasco here on the Source. The fact is, he is without a doubt the most cocky, overbearing, insulting, narcissistic, internet personality in the Eternal formats. Hell, THe Mana Drain, which he once ran, even decided that he should be banned.

I hated his views on Legacy. Trix sucked. Belcher sucked at the time. He tried to hard playing with sub-par decks. I did agree Landstill was bad at the time, but I still believed for Landstill to be good was to adapt with the metagame.... Why wasnt Ur Landstill big yet at the time?


My point being that these two specifically, (members of Meandeck) are indicative of the types who think that they are lords of their format. They attempt to reign supreme over internet discussion, and think that translates into skill at the game. The overt topic of this thread was regarding how wrong they are.


Agreed.

[frogboy]

Look, debating whether or not Meandeck has claim to labeling decks for whatever reason is fine. Personal attacks are not. It's particularly not cool to attack a group for the actions of individuals. Knock it off.

The original purpose of the thread was 1) why people should care about who builds a deck. I think IBA addressed that but more discussion is fine. It looks like most of the current discussion concerns what gives a person or group the right to give a label. Fine. That is not a free pass to flame people.

I have two midterms tomorrow and it's 2 AM so I'm done dealing with this for now but given the high likelihood of me being in a bad mood the next time I see this thread people should probably keep all this in mind.

[Belgareth]

The problem I have with deck naming is , how on earth do you prove you came up with the deck ?
Ok you may think you designed it, you may be the first to actually play it at a tournament but what gives you the right to name a deck as your own design, when somewhere else in the worrld some other guy thinks same thing ?

I'm going to use Hanni as an example as I see him lurking as I post this ;)
Some places call UWBfish "HanniFish" since he pioneered a lot of work on it, but fish was always around and the black splash was being worked on simultaneously on British forums.
Now I have no issue with it being called HanniFish (Though I myself use UWBfish) , but it illustrates my point that 2 different teams/designers can work on something at same time.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

The problem I have with deck naming is , how on earth do you prove you came up with the deck ?
Ok you may think you designed it, you may be the first to actually play it at a tournament but what gives you the right to name a deck as your own design, when somewhere else in the worrld some other guy thinks same thing ?

I'm going to use Hanni as an example as I see him lurking as I post this ;)
Some places call UWBfish "HanniFish" since he pioneered a lot of work on it, but fish was always around and the black splash was being worked on simultaneously on British forums.
Now I have no issue with it being called HanniFish (Though I myself use UWBfish) , but it illustrates my point that 2 different teams/designers can work on something at same time.

Like authorship/patenting, I would imagine it's not a set and rigid system, but a judgement call based on how original a decklist or deck revision is, when it was first revealed to witnesses, when it was first played in a tournament, etc.

I think the point hi-val raises about fighting over credit for something ambiguous could be well-taken, but the majority of deck designs have a clearer line of descent, thanks to teh intraweb.

[Cait_Sith]

I didn't know you guys hated Mike Herbig so much. Does he know?

He invented the counterspell, OF COURSE PEOPLE HATE HIM!

Honestly, I don't like when people take credit for other people's work, but I am also lazy. As in I don't feel like typing out "the deck list I am planning on using" so I just refer to it as "my list" except on the MtG forums, where people will actually think its my list. Those crazy MtGers.

[Nightmare]

I have no idea where people get the asinine idea that I'm in any way comparing this format to Vintage. If I am, quote me please, otherwise plz stfu and don't put words in my mouth and straw man my arguments. Vintage is even less of a blip. Seriously, people who read "and VINTAGE IS BETAR THAN LEGAYEY" into my statement have a lot of defensiveness about their format to work out.I didn't read that in your post, I just pointed out how either format fit that statement.

[Cait_Sith]

I have no idea where people get the asinine idea that I'm in any way comparing this format to Vintage. If I am, quote me please, otherwise plz stfu and don't put words in my mouth and straw man my arguments.

A straw man is defined by creating an argument with the intent of refuting it OR characterizing an argument so as to be easier to attack. I really don't see people doing this, so when starting a flame war PLEASE don't use terms that are not applicable.

Also, it would be "don't put straw men into my arguments" or "don't make straw men out of my arguments." Don't "verb" my nouns.

Yes, that was just driving me crazy because it isn't the first time someone ran around using the term straw men liberally and illogically.

[hi-val]

Why isn't that a straw man? People are creating an argument-- that I claim that Vintage is better than Legacy-- and then refuting it by showing how wrong I am. A straw man is an argument that nobody has made; "liberals want to abort your children and turn them gay" is an example.

An argument was constructed: I think Vintage is a better format than Legacy.
The argument was refuted: Obviously I drink my own weewee.
The fallacy: I never said Vintage was better.

The meaning of a straw man, figuratively, is to create a construct; an artificial man on whom one can attack. There were several instances of straw man arguments being made. I don't think my usage is inconsistent at all. If you think so, I'd be happy to talk about it in a PM.

I don't say this to toot my horn or appeal to authority but I've studied formal and informal logic for years now and I'm pretty sure I know where fallacies pop up and what they are. At the same time, I reserve the right to be wrong.



And verbing nouns is what makes the English language so malleable, flexible and innovative. Why do you hate England so much? : )

[Caboose]

Doug Linn, you're smarter than this. :frown:

[xsockmonkeyx]

Straw Man = a weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician, debater, etc. so as to be able to attack it and gain an easy, showy victory.

There are definitely some straw men about. There is also a fair share of stereotyping and prejudice as well.

[herbig]

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/WL/en-us/Card4441.jpg

[Nightmare]

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/WL/en-us/Card4441.jpg
<3.

<3<3<3 Herbig.

[Zherbus]

Hell, THe Mana Drain, which he once ran, even decided that he should be banned.

Just to stop any misinformation, he never ran TMD.

[hi-val]

Doug Linn, you're smarter than this. :frown:

Explain?

Zherbus is right; Stephen never ran TMD, but once I saw him spit on an Arab and he also poured Pepsi on a homeless woman.

Interestingly enough, Stephen has some very interesting views on intellectual property, and he's probably one of the few people in the community qualified enough to speak on it, having actually legally studied it.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Interestingly enough, Stephen has some very interesting views on intellectual property, and he's probably one of the few people in the community qualified enough to speak on it, having actually legally studied it.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I'm not sure what the inverse of Appeal to Authority is called, but certainly it's ludicrous to suggest that because no one here is patent lawyer, their opinions must be uninformed and irrelevant.

[hi-val]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html



This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.


he's probably one of the few people in the community qualified enough to speak on it, having actually legally studied it.

I mean it's great and all that you can use google to look up fallacies, but I don't really see where the person I talked about is not an authority on the subject. Did you actually read your own link? What would it take for that person to be qualified to speak about the legal issue of intellectual property? Do you think that you are qualified to talk about its legal meanings?'

Read those six points in the article and tell me why you think this is a fallacious appeal to authority.

EDIT: I didn't see your edit. If you could show me where I said that people who have not studied it are unqualified, I'd like to see it. If you implied it in, there's this thing that philosophers and logicians have called the Principle of Charity, which means that you don't read in nitpicks and assume things so that you can soundly defeat something that the person never said. You, instead, read an argument in its strongest possible form.

EDIT EDIT: Okay, I can legitmately see where you got that idea of an inverse appeal to authority from. I'm leaving the previous stuff here for completeness.

My point with that comment was that there seem to be definitions of intellectual property here that aren't actually intellectual property. When I say that one is qualified to hold a position, I mean that in the sense that one is legally qualified to talk about it, serve as an expert witness, etc. That doesn't really hold up in the intarweb.

It'd be interesting to read up on the legal protections on intellectual property afforded to cooking recipes, because I feel that recipes and decklists are probably very close in the spirit of the law.

[Cait_Sith]

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/WL/en-us/Card4441.jpg

Someone just won this thread... and it isn't hi-val (or me, or IBA, although Mr. Nightmare gets a close second)

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I mean it's great and all that you can use google to look up fallacies, but I don't really see where the person I talked about is not an authority on the subject. Did you actually read your own link? What would it take for that person to be qualified to speak about the legal issue of intellectual property? Do you think that you are qualified to talk about its legal meanings?'

I worked four months in an IP firm. Does that count?


It'd be interesting to read up on the legal protections on intellectual property afforded to cooking recipes, because I feel that recipes and decklists are probably very close in the spirit of the law.


I consider Magic in general anagolous to chess, where the history of different openings, problems, and strategies seems important enough for people to credit specific individuals with this opening or that problem.

I think IBA's main point, and I may be mistaken, is that while it's not necessary to credit a deck designer every single time the deck is discussed, it's also important not to simply forget or miscredit a deck's origins.

For one, I think it'd be a bad message to send to aspiring deck-builders; you can spend months tuning a deck, but if someone else gets lucky with it, they'll get their name in an article and you won't get any credit at all. So where would the incentive be to actually innovate and explore? If deck designers don't matter and shouldn't get any kudos for their hard work, why don't we all just pick up Goblins and call it a day?

[hi-val]

Sure! Can you tell me about the intellectual property rights related to a decklist? Does someone own it? I remember from the Salinger memoirs case the ruling that someone owns physical letters, but not the words printed on them, and I'm wondering whether that has import here. Do you have any insight on recipes?

Does one have a legal right to a decklist? I'm curious.

[kirdape3]

She was pregnant, and he kicked her in the belly too. I mean, that's what you get when you ask a WASP for change.

This incidentally is proving quite humorous (not the intellectual property stuff, which is quite a valid discussion).

Onto the actual topic at hand.

EDT has been quoted as saying that there really are no new decks, just adaptations of existing ones. Off the top of my head, there is really only one or two decks in the entire format that aren't either a direct port from another format or an existing Extended deck with some old cards in it. Those decks are Ill-Gotten Gains (that recursion engine does not exist in Vintage and never did in Extended) and 43land.dec (Life from the Loam specifically exists in Extended and is the best deck there, but Manabond and Mulch don't exist in that format). There might be others, but those are the ones I'd expect to see in Legacy.

Now. Do we give credit to people for porting a deck from another format? Jack Elgin didn't build B/G/W Control in Standard (the Beach House deck), but he certainly ported it to Legacy where it acquired yet another silly name. David Gearhart didn't make High Tide, but he brought it into the format (forgive me if I'm pulling a Rich Shay on whoever did port that deck). And so on. Within this particular circle, they have credit for 'building' the decks, but the ideas themselves aren't new.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Sure! Can you tell me about the intellectual property rights related to a decklist? Does someone own it? I remember from the Salinger memoirs case the ruling that someone owns physical letters, but not the words printed on them, and I'm wondering whether that has import here. Do you have any insight on recipes?

Does one have a legal right to a decklist? I'm curious.

I don't see why a recipe would be any different than a chemical compound or a medicine. It'd probably be a little tricker to prove originality, but that wouldn't be as difficult with Magic.

I'm pretty sure that if your work is a derivative work/patent and you want to copyright/patent it, you need the permission of the owner of the work/patent your's is based on. So I very much doubt you can copyright a decklist. Unless you want to pay Wizards a lot of money for that privelage.

I'm not even sure which a decklist would fall under; it's not a science or writing, and it's not really a useful invention. It doesn't do the public any good, so I doubt it falls under any kind of concievable protection.

[n00bas4urus_r3x]

Does anyone actually want legal rights to a decklist? In my view, designing a new deck or improving a deck for a format is doing a favor to the format. It expands the knowledge and (if it's a good deck) the increases the competitiveness of the format it is released in. Look at TES for example. People are now forced to a) find a way to deal with a fast storm combo deck, b) pray no one in there meta plays it or that they won't be paired against it, or c) roll over and die to it. As IBA and Finn have said, deckbuilding is just as big a part of magic as playing, and a lot of people get a sense of accomplishment and pride when they see a deck they had a hand in succeed. I guess if you want legal rights to a deck, you're in the wrong business.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Inane nonsense.

Time the hell out. Using Ill-Gotten gains in the same old deck is original, but using Reset as an engine and completely changing the deck's strategy isn't? Old High Tide and Reset-High Tide have almost nothing in common. If you can't see that, then you're pushing some ridiculous bias.

[Goblin Snowman]

I'd like to be appreciated for both doing well with other people's decks, and be noticed for my decks. I'll usually put the decks creator in a "Props" section of a report or something along those lines. But honestly, does anyone really care that feverently about this? If someone does well with a deck you made, just say you made it or something.

[Atwa]

Does one have a legal right to a decklist? I'm curious.

No he doesn't. And if it was possible to own the rights to a decklist, I'm sure Wizards will have the rights, since the cardnames are copyrighted. Watch out before they sue someone for putting copyrighted words on a (deck)list.

Serious though, why cares what a deck is called. The person who ranks the highest with it gets to pick the list, doesn't he? You normally write it on top of the deck registration form, at least I do.

UGw Thresh is UGw Thresh
Faerie Stompy is Faerie Stompy

I can put names on it, but who cares. I am not going to call a deck Bardo Thresh or Eladriel Mono Blue Stompy.

I can see a person care for getting credit for the decks (s)he created, but if the creator called the deck Truffle Shuffle, I call it Truffle Shuffle. Not IBA Thruffle Shuffle.

However, if a player has been promoting his deck all over the place, giving it popularity, and has had some decent results with it, the guy deserves some credit for it. And having some other players replace 4 cards (replace 4 WoG with 4 Damnation) and call it IcBE BGW Control just plain sucks (we don't do that kind of thing, don't be afraid (but did you hear about The IcBE Storm? We replaced 2 Cabal Ritual for Shiman Spirit Guides, we rule!)).

If a deck is well know by it's name among the community, just use it's name. And don't tag any team names on it. Simple names are nice, they just sound better. TES is an exception here, since the name works out well. The first week I didn't even realise what was the epic part of the deck :)

[kirdape3]

The difference between Reset High Tide and original High Tide is Time Spiral. PS, that card's banned. The difference between Ill-Gotten Gains and say, Vintage Intuition Tendrils (Becker's old list) is Yawgmoth's Will versus Ill-Gotten Gains. PS, Will's banned and better stay there.

Got me.

[frogboy]

For one, I think it'd be a bad message to send to aspiring deck-builders; you can spend months tuning a deck, but if someone else gets lucky with it, they'll get their name in an article and you won't get any credit at all. So where would the incentive be to actually innovate and explore?

Winning the tournament?

edit: The Reset High Tide engine is basically just a new untap mechanic for High Tide; structurally, the Tide decks from the past and present play largely the same: they ramp mana, set up their big spell, and rock face.

[TeenieBopper]

I read the first few posts and something stuck out in my mind. Something along the lines of Vintage and other formats moving beyond credit for deckbuilding years ago.

Meandeck, and Meandeck Oath, Meandeck Tendrils, Meandeck Stax, Meandeck Trix, and Meandeck Elves all beg to differ.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Now. Do we give credit to people for porting a deck from another format? Jack Elgin didn't build B/G/W Control in Standard (the Beach House deck), but he certainly ported it to Legacy where it acquired yet another silly name.

Would you be interested in seeing what cards Beachhouse Control and Truffle Shuffle have in common? Of course you would! Here's the list:


MD:
3 Swamps
1 Plains

SB:

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Winning the tournament?

That's not realistic; any deck-building outside of a few card tweaks requires time that could otherwise be spent playing an all ready tuned decklist and learning its ins and outs. Actual innovation requires a concern more far-reaching than just winning the next tourney.


edit: The Reset High Tide engine is basically just a new untap mechanic for High Tide; structurally, the Tide decks from the past and present play largely the same: they ramp mana, set up their big spell, and rock face.

The strategic difference between doing it at Sorcery speed with permanents and at instant speed with no non-land permanents is pretty damned big. As big as you can realistically expect with any deck concept that doesn't use entirely new and unexplored cards.

Solidarity isn't based around High Tide the way other High Tide variants are; it's based around Reset. The big tip-off is the lack of non-instants in the deck. As a deck based around Reset, a card previously unplayed in any competitive arena, I think it meets the criteria for originality. It's not completely new, but then, what is?

I think the whole "Legacy is just port decks" is pretty unwarranted. Gamekeeper was, to my knowledge, unplayed before its Legacy appearance, as was Solitary Confinement. I'm also pretty sure the concept of Tomb/City of Traitors + Fats + Equipment didn't originate in another format.

PS: kirdape - I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or actually conceding that the difference is the same.


Also, now that I think about it, atwa is probably right. If anyone owns the rights to a decklist, it's WotC.

[kirdape3]

I was actually conceding.

Jack: Both the Standard deck and the Legacy one have the same general gameplan: that is, grind the opponent under with incremental attrition strategies and then win with whatever's left. The reason that the Legacy deck has mostly different cards than the Standard one is that there were something like thirty extra sets legal in Legacy than there were in Standard when that deck existed. Both of them are design descendents of the 2001-era B/G/x lists from GP: Las Vegas. Yes, you ported it, but it's absolutely not an original design concept.

[frogboy]

That's not realistic; any deck-building outside of a few card tweaks requires time that could otherwise be spent playing an all ready tuned decklist and learning its ins and outs. Actual innovation requires a concern more far-reaching than just winning the next tourney.

Right. Tsuyoshi Fujita built Sneaky-Go and Suicide-Go because he wanted fame, not because he wanted to win tournaments.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Right. Tsuyoshi Fujita built Sneaky-Go and Suicide-Go because he wanted fame, not because he wanted to win tournaments.

Not fame, but recognition. Unless you actually have a diary entry of his stating that he wanted to build(and apparently(and suspiciously) name) those decks without any credit for that accomplishment, your point is completely moot. Winning is obviously fantastic too, but given that he apparently took the time to give them names, it's logical to assume he took pride in building them too.

[hi-val]

I read the first few posts and something stuck out in my mind. Something along the lines of Vintage and other formats moving beyond credit for deckbuilding years ago.

Meandeck, and Meandeck Oath, Meandeck Tendrils, Meandeck Stax, Meandeck Trix, and Meandeck Elves all beg to differ.


You forgot the Meandeck Solution, Meandeck Tide, Meandeck Mother, Meandeck Forests.dec, Meandeck GWS Oath, Meandeck Shortbus Smallpox, Meandeck ICBM Oath, Meandeck Kobolds and Meandeck Roc of Kher Ridges.

On a serious note, you could have avoided looking ig'nant if you'd read my post about that in this thread:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=126468&postcount=11

And we're certainly not asking anyone else to use those names and we certainly aren't getting hissy when they aren't used.

[Peter_Rotten]

Would you be interested in seeing what cards Beachhouse Control and Truffle Shuffle have in common? Of course you would! Here's the list:


MD:
3 Swamps
1 Plains

SB:

If TruffleShuffle was an essay, I'd give it a zero for plagiarism.

[frogboy]

Mmm. Spat: Truce: People build decks for pride and to win tournaments. Some focus more on one of those aspects. Fair?

[Nihil Credo]

Would you be interested in seeing what cards Beachhouse Control and Truffle Shuffle have in common? Of course you would! Here's the list:


MD:
3 Swamps
1 Plains

SB:
You can't be serious, IBA: you know better than that. Of course the cards aren't the same. But they perform the same role, card for card.

* Shocklands -> Duals and fetchlands
* Wrath, Mortify, Putrefy, Fetters -> Deed, Vindicate, Damnation, StP
* Hierarch -> Hierarch
* Scarab, Kokusho -> Scarab, Gigapede
* Castigate, Persecute -> Duress, Hymn
* Dimir House Guard -> Glittering Wish

The only changes are that Truffle Shuffle doesn't need acceleration (Signets) because its cards are more cost-efficient, and that Phyrexian Arena is too slow/frail for Legacy so the CA and digging is provided by a combination of Top, Piggies and shuffle effects (but if WotC printed an indestructible 1B Arena, it'd be played in a heartbeat). Neither of those changes involve a different game plan.

They're the same deck, only built for two different formats. I don't think it can be seriously disputed.

[DeathwingZERO]

Forgive me for coming into this so late, but I'm seeing some strangely mixed signals between people here. After reading this, I'm assuming the main argument is "Do deckbuilders really deserve recognition for their work, and in the same sense, why?"

My opinion: there's no such thing as a "new" deck type. Period. We have three basic archetypes: combo, control, aggro, and mixtures thereof. There will never bee anything different to their goal. What IS different, is how they get to the win. I think a lot of people are confusing that instance, and saying that "It doesn't matter how you get to the win, a Tendrils deck is a Tendrils deck" etc.

In this particular case, I can't see it being arrogant in the least bit to have a team name in the decklist (as was pointed out with Meandeck's lists), as long as the idea of "I created this version of the deck", is where it stands, not "I created the archetype". For example, working on TJS a while back, Link and I were happy with seeing people give us recognition for building the deck. Yes, it was based on TPS, but it was hardly a port. You can't port Vintage power or restricted cards, you can only hope sub-par answers take their place. So when we were finished, yes, I would say we were the builders of the deck. The concept was there, but the cards were totally different, marginally.

But I'm not going to say we didn't look to TPS for the concept. I loved TPS in Vintage, and wanted to create something of an homage to it for Legacy. However, it was totally different when finished. Any changes in the path to winning that are drastic enough to change the strategy of the deck, make it a different deck, in my opinion. Thus, it's only fair that the designer of this version be allowed to call it whatever they want, or even put their name in on it. It IS their version.

In the case of "Who deserves credit", the web has really changed that. We've got so many different ideas and builders talking to each other at any given time, that there's no real good indicator, except for those that actually WIN with the decks. At that point, there's not much you can do about it other than having any real proof your version was first. But why would it matter then? You and your friends or teammates would know that you had it done on your own, that should be good enough recognition.

[Nihil Credo]

My opinion: there's no such thing as a "new" deck type. Period. We have three basic archetypes: combo, control, aggro, and mixtures thereof. There will never bee anything different to their goal.
Stax. Burn. Terrageddon. Pox. Survival. T2 Izzetron. Extended CAL. Tempest-Urza Wildfire-Tinker. Ice Age Necro (NOT Trix).

Classifying any of these decks within any of those three categories, or as a mixture of them, is at best a stretch, at worst a total miss.

[Zach Tartell]

Why don't we encourage new players to play old decktypes, without any experiance or testing, at the suggestion of their friends? It worked well enough for me and Enchantress. That way nothing's ever stale, either. Instead of crappy kitchen table decks with like coat of arms elves and 5c Slivers, let's see like FEB or something cool across the table. And they'll be able to get around stupid hate, too. Who's goign to expect something like food chain dwarves? Or like... uh... Rec-Sur? Everyone wins!

[Epheniculles]

I have no problem with someone taking a deck I've designed and rocking a tournament. Hell, the person doesn't even have to say I created it, or give props to me.

The problem begins when a person starts posting up how great he is, and brings attention to himself, and how it was him and him alone. It also begins to be a problem if someone else trys to take credit for a deck I've created. What someone can do if they feel the need to do interviews or post about how great they did is just put a simple, "Props to whoever came up with the idea for the deck."


Would the creator of TES or Solidarity not speak out if I started saying, I designed the deck after I performed well or won a tournament? Many would argue that I was wrong, but what if I contested, that I had the deck, and played someone online, only for the other player to steal the idea of the deck, after I crushed them.

Deck creation is a big part of Magic, and actually one of the most played formats tests the skill of deck building, Draft. Sealed deck isn't played nearly as often as Draft, but that also requires skill in deck construction.

[Cait_Sith]

Stax. Burn. Terrageddon. Pox. T2 Izzetron. Extended CAL. Many old Tinker lists.

Classifying any of these decks within any of those three categories, or as a mixture of them, is at best a stretch, at worst a total miss.

Stax is Prison AKA Lockdown, the ghostly 4th type.

Burn is combo.

Terrageddon is Aggro-Control.

Pox is Control.

Standard Izzetron is Control.

I don't play extended.

Many Tinker lists were Combo and Combo-Control.

On Beach House vs Truffle Shuffle:

Thus far you have shown the analogues can be drawn between the cards played in the deck. However, there is one thing that you did not mention, which is the most basic idea of each deck. Elgin style control focuses on making consistent land drops to allow for an artificially high curve/mana intensity that allowed for more powerful cards, despite what would otherwise be a prohibitive mana cost.

Beach House... does not.

[Zilla]

You can't be serious, IBA: you know better than that. Of course the cards aren't the same. But they perform the same role, card for card.
It's already been stated in this thread that there are no truly new decks anymore. From a practical standpoint, this is essentially true. I don't think this fact detracts at all from the work someone puts into adapting and updating a deck to do well in an entirely different environment using an entirely different cardpool.

The fact that nearly every single "new" deck design rests upon the foundations of other peoples' work does not delegitimize the new work being done. The cardpool and the format are in a perpetual state of change, and as such, so are archetypes and decklists. This is an allegory for every other human endeavor in existence; math, science, literature, film, art - every innovation in these fields are derivative of the work that came before them. That's how these things grow and evolve. We recognize and celebrate people who make advancements in other areas - why should deck design be any different?



People build decks for pride and to win tournaments. Some focus more on one of those aspects. Fair?With all due respect, Max, I think your viewpoint on this topic is hopelessly skewed. I think it's wrong to rhetorically assert that the only reason people develop decks is to succeed in a tournament setting. You don't build your own decks ever. You play magic to win tournaments. There's nothing wrong with this, but you have to recognize that you're at one end of a spectrum. I hardly have any time at all to go to tournaments, but I still play magic all the time because I want to test and adapt my deck ideas. Primarily, the joy I get from the game is from the theoretical aspects of deck design and development. I care very little about winning tournaments, outside of legitimizing my creations. I'm not really concerned with fame, per se, but I do think I deserve recognition for my work when it performs well or helps to advance the format.

[Machinus]

What about just plain bad decks? Don't we care about only giving credit to those whose decks are actually relevant to the format? People talking and posting extensively about their miniscule works of design shouldn't earn recognition and praise, should it? Surely we wouldn't tolerate that kind of nonsense in this community. Right?

[Nihil Credo]

Or like... uh... Rec-Sur?
Indeed. (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=15231)

Edit: reloading before replying FTW.

@Zilla: I fully agree with what you said. I believe porting, altering, tuning, or metagaming a decklist to be as deserving of credit as coming up with a new concept. Developers aren't worth any less than designers. I was just rebutting IBA's claim that the two decks had nothing in common aside from a few basic lands.

@Cait:

Stax is Prison AKA Lockdown, the ghostly 4th type.
OK.


Burn is combo.If Burn is combo, then so is White Weenie - a deck where all the non-mana cards perform the same function.


Terrageddon is Aggro-Control.Maybe a bit of combo too (Genesis-Confinement). And prison as well (Armageddons, plus the Confinement lockdown).
I'm sure if we had a couple more archetypes, Terrageddon would have a bit of them too.


Pox is Control.Closer to Prison IMO. But OK.


Standard Izzetron is Control.Izzetron never gains "control" of the game. It just delays you with Remands and Repeals until it can drop Keiga/Meloku and burn you out (Referring to pre-Wildfire lists).


I don't play extended.OK.


Many Tinker lists were Combo and Combo-Control.I find it hard to call "Phyrexian Processor for 10, Wildfire the board" either combo or control. See the Terrageddon comment.


On Beach House vs Truffle Shuffle:

Thus far you have shown the analogues can be drawn between the cards played in the deck. However, there is one thing that you did not mention, which is the most basic idea of each deck. Elgin style control focuses on making consistent land drops to allow for an artificially high curve/mana intensity that allowed for more powerful cards, despite what would otherwise be a prohibitive mana cost.

Beach House... does not.Doesn't Beach House consistently develop its mana to play expensive spells that are (hopefully) more powerful than whatever's on the other side of the table? Seriously, I could not have described the deck any better.

[DeathwingZERO]

Stax. Burn. Terrageddon. Pox. T2 Izzetron. Extended CAL. Many old Tinker lists.

Classifying any of these decks within any of those three categories, or as a mixture of them, is at best a stretch, at worst a total miss.

Stax (control, rare "versions" aggro/control..like 5/3), burn (aggro, sometimes aggro/control), Pox (control, also sometimes aggro/control depending on win condition), Izzetron (combo/control), "Classic" Tinker (control).

In actuality, it's VERY easy to put them into these categories. How do they work?

Stax: Keeps your opponents under a "lockdown", via resource denial, as well as "breaking" the balance of your artifacts hurting you less than the opponent. Will win at it's leisure, or the opponent scoops.

Burn: Fire as much as humanly possible to take your opponent from 20-0. The original "aggro" deck style, and often the "clock" for which aggro decks are up against. Can also be considered control, depending on if theres board sweeping style spells (Pyroclasm, Flamebreak, etc), as well as SB options of denial abilities (Blood Moon, etc).

Terrageddon: This one I didn't classify, as it's more or less the style of the player that's dictating it's patterns. I'm also not familiar with many versions of this deck.

Pox: Monoblack control at one of it's finest designs. Your constantly looking to achieve total advantage via Pox, as well as denying your opponent of critical win conditions using it to your advantage, in addition to resource denial, card advantage, and a fast clock, in the aggro/control route (via Negator, etc). Otherwise, a simple set of "cheap" 2/2s can take the win over time.

Izzetron: Built off the engine of Tron (much like Tooth and Nail), but is completely different. Rather than using land search in multitudes, it draws into Tron pieces or win conditions. Having a lot of various control elements to keep your Keiga/Meloku online as a win condition, or a backup to use your opponent's as your own (Keiga/Confiscate). In some instances (like Osyp's) Giant Solifuge/Ryusei is SB' to turn it to a much more aggressive version, which is still mostly control oriented, in others, we see Jitte, Pithing Needle, and Cranial Extrations. All in all, very much a control deck, with combo-like setup and execution (Invoke the Firemind).

CAL: Heard about it, but again, not familiar with it. Therefore, I can't say where I'd put it.

Tinker: Ok, I've played with and against many different Tinker decks, most were T2 and Extended versions. Whether it was classic like Finkel's, newer (the recent "Tinker Extended" season, etc)....it always had a control style. In some instances, it also ran through combo (Final Fantasy) as the win condition, but that was a rare occurrence. Even in most cases of T1 now, it's primarily in control decks, like Slaver, etc, and sometimes in combo for backup.

Now, let me explain. There's going to be decks that don't "fit" completely into a category, hence the mixture of archetypes. But if you get down to it, can you honestly think of a specific deck that would ever be considered all three types at once? Personally, I think the only decks I've seen pull that off would have been Tooth and Nail, and Food Chain Goblins. Both were classified as combo decks, due to their ability to finish off with a resolved chain (Food Chain + Recruiter/Ringleader tricks or Tooth and Nail), but both also had the ability to cast non-combo pieces into winning via combat, AND had maindecked/SB proactive tricks to control the opponents (Sharpshooter, Incinerator/SGC and Plow Under/Cranial Extraction) in various builds.

Either way, yes, you can classify anything in a specific archetype. Does that mean it fits completely? No. But it does follow along with what the general game plan is, and how it achieves its victory.

[Nihil Credo]

I did not claim that you could not find aggro, combo, or control aspects in every deck. I claimed that trying to define them only through those terms would end up in ambiguity (Deathwing's Izzetron entry is a good example of that) or misunderstandings. Cait considers Burn to be a combo deck, while Deathwing considers it an aggro deck - doesn't that speak volumes about how weak "aggro" and "combo" are as categorizing tools?

G'night all, I'll be happy to continue this discussion tomorrow.

[Cait_Sith]

If Burn is combo, then so is White Weenie - a deck where all the non-mana cards perform the same function.


All the non-mana cards of White Weenie are direct damage? White Weenie is clearly aggro, where dudes are played. Dudes bash face. Burn is a form of non-storm based, slow combo. It utilizes a series of cards with a very high damage to cost ratio to quickly kill your opponent. It is certainly an odder form of combo, but it is combo.



Maybe a bit of combo too (Genesis-Confinement). And prison as well (Armageddons, plus the Confinement lockdown).
I'm sure if we had a couple more archetypes, Terrageddon would have a bit of them too.


The Genesis-Confinement isn't in all of them, but those that do have them can end up as Aggro-Combo-Control, the do it all deck type. (Yes, I agree that it can have a splash of Lockdown/Prison)



Closer to Prison IMO. But OK.


I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of how Prison and Lockdown are different. I treat them as the same, I just like saying Lockdown more.



Izzetron never gains "control" of the game. It just delays you with Remands and Repeals until it can drop Keiga/Meloku and burn you out (Referring to pre-Wildfire lists).


Control functions in a few ways, but it mostly falls into either focusing on card advantage (Fact or Fiction, Wrath of God) or Tempo (Pox/Smallpox, Remand). Izzetron is a perfect example of Tempo control.



I find it hard to call "Phyrexian Processor for 10, Wildfire the board" either combo or control. See the Terrageddon comment.


This is a great example of Tempo Control. You seriously injure people's ability to stop you, then you plunge some fatty in for the win (there are other ways of doing it naturally, this is one example.)



Doesn't Beach House consistently develop its mana to play expensive spells that are (hopefully) more powerful than whatever's on the other side of the table? Seriously, I could not have described the deck any better.

There is some closeness, yes. However, Dirt is WGB Control, but it isn't often compared to Truffle, because it runs on a different theory. Beach House ran far fewer library manipulation than Truffle (which is the central part of Truffle Shuffle specifically) and did not have as much draw power (I LUVLES YOU PIGGY!)

[tivadar]

I for one enjoy deck-building more than I actually enjoy tournament play. This comes primarily from the fact that I love strategy games, and I'm notoriously absent-minded. You know that grunt I have on the table? He's gone within two turns no matter how many cards you have in your graveyard :-P.

Do I expect credit for a particular list? Heck no! Do I expect credit should I come up with a completely new deck? Hell yes!

Note: I think there's a big difference here:

Goblins, in all its forms, was NOT "invented" by anyone in legacy. It was ported over from Standard essentially, and better cards were added. Who knows who made the list there.

Fairy stompy, on the other hand, is a completely new list and concept. While it has ties to decks like 5/3 (which I also consider an innovation), it is innovative and is far from a port.

I like creating AS variants. I don't expect credit for this. Angel Stompy as a whole was made by Godzilla (I believe he was the first... there may have been another, look at the thread!). Maybe my splashes are slightly better, maybe they're not, maybe I'm lucky, maybe I'm unlucky.

Now, mind you, I do think there are gray areas here. TES is a prime example of this. While it's an offshoot of iggy, it makes quite a few significant changes.

As for "giving credit". I don't expect you not to refer to your deck as "my list", even if you're netdecking. What you're really saying is the list you're using for the event, not the list you invented. However, if you make a new decklist, and post it, and exclaim, "Look at this deck that I made!". If this deck is my deck with 10 cards swapped out... You had best damn reference my deck. I mean, come on, do a literature search :-P.

I guess part of this comes from my background in academia, where if you're publishing something that you came up with without any outside help, you had best damn make sure no one else has done it first. If they have, it doesn't matter that you didn't know their work existed, that's your own damn fault.

Lastly, don't argue that there are 4 "decks". There are 4 archetypes, there's a big difference... How these decks do what they do varies muchly.

[frogboy]

Decks with forty burn spells are fundamentally combo decks. The combo is drawing twenty points of damage. This can be mistaken for an aggro deck, but aggressive decks play clocks. RDW is an aggressive deck.

CAL was a control deck. Aggro-CAL at the end of the season was a control deck with aggressive elements that made it capable of taking the Serra plan to a whole new level.

Prison decks are control decks. The Confinement lock is a control element.

From what I understand, Terravore is a deck based around playing a clock and blowing up a lot of lands. I'd classify that as an aggressive deck. (Armageddon is a disruptive element that can be used in many strategies, by the way.)

"Tinker" is broad. Tinkering for Gilded Lotus is different than Tinkering for Processor is different than Tinkering for Mindslaver is different than Tinkering for Sundering Titan. Come back with a specific deck.

Tron was a control deck; it ramped mana and used control elements for board control then deployed huge threats.


With all due respect, Max, I think your viewpoint on this topic is hopelessly skewed. I think it's wrong to rhetorically assert that the only reason people develop decks is to succeed in a tournament setting. You don't build your own decks ever. You play magic to win tournaments. There's nothing wrong with this, but you have to recognize that you're at one end of a spectrum. I hardly have any time at all to go to tournaments, but I still play magic all the time because I want to test and adapt my deck ideas. Primarily, the joy I get from the game is from the theoretical aspects of deck design and development. I care very little about winning tournaments, outside of legitimizing my creations. I'm not really concerned with fame, per se, but I do think I deserve recognition for my work when it performs well or helps to advance the format.

This makes a lot of sense. I still think you people aren't wired right, but I see where you're coming from.

[MattH]

The similarities between burn and Tendrils of Agony are too many to simply write burn off as non-combo.

In Tendrils, every spell you play is 2 damage. The damage comes in discrete packages, making them difficult to counter.

Change '2' to '3' in the above and you have Burn. Burn is essentially a slower, more stable Tendrils deck, with some relatively minor tactical differences (graveyard reliance, ability to target creatures, etc.).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Jack: Both the Standard deck and the Legacy one have the same general gameplan: that is, grind the opponent under with incremental attrition strategies and then win with whatever's left. The reason that the Legacy deck has mostly different cards than the Standard one is that there were something like thirty extra sets legal in Legacy than there were in Standard when that deck existed. Both of them are design descendents of the 2001-era B/G/x lists from GP: Las Vegas. Yes, you ported it, but it's absolutely not an original design concept.

Harry Potter and Hamlet are both build around themes of revenge, duty, friendship and romance, but this does not make them the same story.

Every deck ever has tried to do one of three things; be the aggressor, be the controller, or both at the same time. The details in the strategy are what make them unique decks. Truffle Shuffle does not play remotely like BeachHouse Control save that they both play green, white, and black, and both try to control the board.

[Zach Tartell]

What romance is there in hamlet? Some sort of Oeidpal thing?

[Obfuscate Freely]

I take issue with anyone simply writing Legacy decks off as ports from other formats because the term "port" describes a specific kind of deck design - attempting to adapt an established deck to function in a different format.

Basically, there is a very real distinction to be made between porting a deck, and creating a deck that, incidentally, has already been created by someone else. Apparently, people do see successfully porting a deck to be less of an accomplishment than creating a deck, so this distinction is non-trivial.

Truffle Shuffle may or may not have all kinds of strategic or tactical similarities to the Beach House deck or any other decks from past formats. Regardless, it is entirely possible that Jack Elgin developed the deck completely independently, and if he did, you cannot say that the deck was ported; it was created.

I can point to Solidarity as a good example of this, because I actually witnessed much of its development. Gearhart's original deck was actually U/G, and it didn't even run High Tide or Reset. Those cards were only included because Dave tested them, and found them to be worthwhile. There was never a point at which David Gearhart's goal was to make an old Extended deck work in 1.5. He was simply working within the 1.5 card pool to design the best deck he could with Brain Freeze in it. Thus, calling Solidarity a "port" is incorrect, and it would be incorrect even if Gearhart's list had eventually come to be identical to the old Extended lists, card-for-card.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Mmm. Spat: Truce: People build decks for pride and to win tournaments. Some focus more on one of those aspects. Fair?

We have an accord.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

What romance is there in hamlet? Some sort of Oeidpal thing?

....



It would probably help your understanding of the discussion if you actually saw/read Hamlet.

[Machinus]

I disagree with anyone who attempts to fit Legacy into their personal model of how other formats work. Legacy doesn't fit the mold, it's that simple. If you want to talk about Legacy intelligently, you have to create new tools from tournament experience.

Bringing up Extended is virtually guaranteed to ruin whatever point you are trying to make, as there is nothing to learn from it's example. There are some faint comparisons to Vintage, but unlike Extended, it is easy for the non-tournament player to understand why they are so different.

The archetype classes are different, deck dynamics are different, and the power level is way different. I haven't seen any intelligent discussion of the format without acknowledging these assumptions completely.

[LrdMcCaffrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonelybaritone
What romance is there in hamlet? Some sort of Oeidpal thing?

....



It would probably help your understanding of the discussion if you actually saw/read Hamlet.

To be fair, Hamlet isn't a terribly romantic play. Ophelia is a pretty weak/pushover female lead who Hamlet doesn't really care that much about, and it'd be hard to call anything that happened between the queen and old Hamlet's brother romantic.

[tivadar]

And Ginny is.... Sure, there's Hermoine, but she's interested in Ron, not Harry.

[Finn]

Speaking of credit where due,
I don't understand how humans think sometimes.


Jack: Both the Standard deck and the Legacy one have the same general gameplan: that is, grind the opponent under with incremental attrition strategies and then win with whatever's left. The reason that the Legacy deck has mostly different cards than the Standard one is that there were something like thirty extra sets legal in Legacy than there were in Standard when that deck existed. Both of them are design descendents of the 2001-era B/G/x lists from GP: Las Vegas. Yes, you ported it, but it's absolutely not an original design concept.

Truffle Shuffle isn't even close to original even within the confines of Legacy. After berating Dirt (itself not entirely original, but is not based on Beachhouse and probably predates it) on and off for half a year, Jack made his own version, took it to a tournament, and proclaimed himself brilliant.

But there are in fact plenty of other original decks in Legacy.

Faerie Stompy - a hybrid, but far more than that.

Land Ho! or whatever you call it - predates any extended use of Life from the Loam - the very card itself. It exists in both, but is not a port unless you see it porting the other way. After tooling around forever with various versions, the Extended build now looks almost identical to what was posted a loooong time ago here on the Source.

Solidarity - I think Spat said all that needs to be on this.



If you want truly original, there is a limited field since there are less than a thousand cards that have never been legal in Extended to be the design focus.

[Nihil Credo]

I was about to write another post, but Machinus and Finn already said what I thought was important, and better than I could. So, to recap, Ophelia is way hotter than Hermione.

[C.P.]

I was about to write another post, but Machinus and Finn already said what I thought was important, and better than I could. So, to recap, Ophelia is way hotter than Hermione.

You mean the other way.


EDIT: I just hate Shakesphere. I had enough in high school.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

To be fair, Hamlet isn't a terribly romantic play. Ophelia is a pretty weak/pushover female lead who Hamlet doesn't really care that much about, and it'd be hard to call anything that happened between the queen and old Hamlet's brother romantic.

To be fair, this is also true of Harry Potter. Romance is either background, something other characters engage in, or something that Harry's vaguely interested in, but ultimately decides (and the narration confirms as a correct choice) that it's less important than his sense of duty and honor in fulfilling the nigh-suicidal job expected of him.

Also, anyone with any common sense hates the shit out of Ginny. She's a pretentious, hideous troll, fitting the all-too-common mold for fantasy and anime stories of "Tough and spunky, by which we mean a completely unjustifiable bitch to everyone, female character who knows everything, is always right, and liked by everyone except the readers, who doesn't actually have to face any repercussions for being a hag to everyone because she's got a hot body".



Truffle Shuffle isn't even close to original even within the confines of Legacy. After berating Dirt (itself not entirely original, but is not based on Beachhouse and probably predates it) on and off for half a year, Jack made his own version, took it to a tournament, and proclaimed himself brilliant.

You really don't want to go here.

Truffle Shuffle has numerous card differences. Primarily, while they're both Black/white/green control, Dirt tried to do everything at once by trying to target lands and running horrible cards like Funeral Charm, whereas Truffle Shuffle is streamlined in what it does and features much, much stronger kill conditions that have far greater synergy with it's gameplan. To the extent that any deck in this mold would have had to have run Bayous, Scrublands, Deed and Vindicate, I suppose you could argue that they're the same deck. Of course, Thresh and Solidarity both run Brainstorm, Force of Will, and fetchlands.

[Machinus]

In case people are still confused about this, I will repeat my classification scheme for Legacy:

Aggro
Aggro-Control
Combo
Control

That scheme is obvious if you play the format at all. There are plenty of other different models that need to be reached before intelligent discussion is possible. Within the realistic framework that apparently is evident only to format veterans, there is plenty of room for original deckbuilding, and is the only thing that works at all.

[Pinder]

Also, anyone with any common sense hates the shit out of Ginny. She's a pretentious, hideous troll, fitting the all-too-common mold for fantasy and anime stories of "Tough and spunky, by which we mean a completely unjustifiable bitch to everyone, female character who knows everything, is always right, and liked by everyone except the readers, who doesn't actually have to face any repercussions for being a hag to everyone because she's got a hot body".


I'm confused. I think you meant Hermione?

[Finn]

You are right. I don't want to go there. Anyone who was around at the time knows the truth, and I stopped caring enough to interrupt your little fantasy.

The funny thing is that now with Glittering Wish, you are approaching full circle.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You are right. I don't want to go there. Anyone who was around at the time knows the truth, and I stopped caring enough to interrupt your little fantasy.

That's funny, because I was around at the time, and I think you're full of shit. Whence the sudden hostility? Do you honestly believe that you had laid a claim to any variation of WGB control, no matter how distinct from the build you were advocating?


The funny thing is that now with Glittering Wish, you are approaching full circle.

I don't run Wastelands in a three color deck, Funeral Charm, Sinkhole, Hyppies, or any easily blasted win conditions. I run sufficent sweepers to actually beat Goblins, card manipulation, resilent kill conditions, and a manabase that can actually survive minimal disruption. I think you give yourself far too much credit, and I find your accusations of plagiarism to be obnoxious and offensive.


I'm confused. I think you meant Hermione?

No, Hermione's alright. Ginny's the cow. Well, I mean, Hermione sort of acts like that, but she's not perfect either, and she has genuine redeeming qualities besides being pretty (which she isn't even really in the books).

[Zilla]

You are right. I don't want to go there. Anyone who was around at the time knows the truth, and I stopped caring enough to interrupt your little fantasy.
I apologize for getting in the middle of your guys' dickfight, but Dirt and Truffle Shuffle have different fundamental strategies, aside from the fact that they're both control decks. The only viable basis for comparison is that they both run BWG as their colors, which is akin to calling every BG deck ever created The Rock.

[frogboy]

which is akin to calling every BG deck ever created The Rock.

Everyone does this anyway.

[DeathwingZERO]

Well, to be fair, The Rock is probably the best that B/G by itself has to offer, and a lot of lists tend to vary of the Rock's original strategy of fat + resource/card disadvantage.

As for the discussion at hand, I noticed someone mentioned "If someone was running a deck I created, but had a 10 card difference, you better not claim it as your own, and at least reference mine".

This is where I think things get mixed up, and the "proof" is nonexistent. How are you to prove your deck was first? If you personally don't place with it, or write an article about it, etc....it's all a matter of "this is my idea", between two or more people. Not to mention, that same person may have never seen your deck before, stumbled across the same idea, and gone a different path with those random 10 cards.

To be fair, a roughly 10 card difference between decks is close enough to distinguish differences like Deadguy vs Red Death, ATS vs RGSA, or U/R/w Landstill vs U/G/W/b Landstill. In fundamental play and theory, those are big differences between them, even if the cores were from the same designs. I personally say that's enough reason to warrant that they have just as much right to claim originality as you would.