Mark Rosewater catches a lot of flak (just recently he was accused of having Reverend Humor, which is no small offense). His job is a tough one and I would say that most of the time he does it decently. I think he's a good writer, funny (or at least more so than a reverend), and he is definitely a good writer. But today I am going to level a charge at him that has never been leveled at an individual before:

Mark Rosewater is responsible for the gradual narrowing of the metagame over the past couple of years, as well as the current narrow metagame that we have on our hands now. (We do, undoubtedly have a narrow metagame. Any argument to the contrary is simply incorrect.)

This article makes one big assumption. I can point out as much evidence as I want, but it won't mean anything unless you, like I, feel that an open metagame is not only more fun, but healthier for the game as a game, for Wizards as a business, and for us as players. The Pros and Cons are as follows:

For a narrow metagame:

• Rewards the three t's: testing, tech, and tight play
• Punishes less skilled players severely for their deck choice

For an open metagame:

• Does not punish players as severely for their deck choices
• For many players this type of metagame is more fun
• Rewards interesting deck ideas and novel strategies

Both options have advantages and disadvantages. This issue is really so complex that an entire article could be written on it. So for now I will leave it as a matter of personal preference and assume, for the sake of argument, that an open metagame is good.

Block-spanning themes are the instruments of destruction here. They drive up power levels astronomically in specific archetypes, creating a metagame where only one or two decks can function competitively. And while it may be unfair to blame Mark Rosewater for all of this, from his writing coupled with how the other columnists talk about him, I get the feeling that theme inflation, and the corresponding metagame deterioration, is mostly his fault.

Don't believe me? Let's look at some trends.

In the following table (Oh God! A table. Where's the President?) we see specific Type 2 seasons, the themes in the most recent set at that time, and the playable decks followed by the theme relevance.

A few notes about the information. Before you accuse me of skewing the data to support my theory by not listing decks on the chart, or combining decks (like W/X and Slide), think about this; in order for a deck to be considered dominant it must be so powerful that not only do you have to consider its presence at any tournament, but if you can't post reasonable percentages against it you might as well not be playing. Tooth and Nail does not force you to do this, neither does R/G, nor did Mono-Black dominate the metagame in Invasion-Odyssey. These are (were) all powerful decks, but they are not dominant, which just furthers my point about the narrowing metagame, but back to the chart.

Before Odyssey, everything was peachy. Powerful decks arose, but none were unstoppable. Themes were present but none absolutely overran the sets (There are more artifacts than colored cards in the average Mirrodin booster pack). When Odyssey came out, and I mean the whole Block really came out and people had some time to build with it, we begin to see something frightening. There was a marked increase in theme relevance between Invasion and Odyssey. Just open a booster pack and count the number of cards that have something to do with the set's theme to test this fact.

So themes become more important and what happens? We see the emergence of several clearly dominant decks. But because there are still several decks that can be played and because the best of which is fairly difficult to play, no one really complains. Enter Onslaught, creatures types matter now all of a sudden, well just Goblins that is, but yeah very much so. With the release of Scourge the Goblin deck receives Goblin Warchief and Siege-Gang Commander, and becomes a nigh unstoppable force. Here again we see an increase in theme relevance and a drop from three truly playable decks down to two (W/X really arose at the latest possible moment and even then was hard pressed to combat the powerful CHUCK Commander.) Mirrodin hits the shelves and Affinity is born.

A quick side note. It is interesting to me that we as a community originally tried to use Affinity, which is, by it's nature (by its very definition) a cost-reducing mechanic, in a control deck. Kai Budde himself came up with a list that used Temporal Fissure, but I'm not going to point any fingers because I just followed along. Only when Darksteel was released and we were introduced to Lucifer's right hand man in Arcbound Ravager, did we put together a decent aggro build. My question is this: Could a powerful aggro deck have been built for Ons-Leg-Scr-Mir type 2 using Atog, Myr Retriever, Ornithopters, Tooths and Scales of Chiss-Goria, and maybe even Bonesplitter?

Never before has a theme been so clearly stressed in any set, ever. I keep all my commons and uncommons in multi-rowed card boxes. The Mirrodin artifact cards are more numerous than any two Mirrodin colors combined. Quite frankly I find that unsettling. But what is even more unsettling is what happened to the metagame. Affinity has posted a simply staggering number of top eight appearances. It is without a doubt the single most powerful deck in Type 2. I'm not anti Affinity, I'm pro metagame. Clearly theme prominence has been increasing and just as clearly the metagame has been tightening up like a fat man's belt at Thanksgiving. But who says that this is Wizards fault? Who says that anything can be done about this at all? After all, we build the decks and we build 'em to win. I'm not discouraging that people build the best deck possible, and I fully accept that there will always be a best deck no matter what happens. What I refuse to accept is a metagame that's manufactured for us and forced down our throats just so that sets can seem flavorful, by the very man who is constantly telling us that form follows function.

If form follows function than shouldn't the primary concern for a set be the health and size of the metagame that will arise, instead of some silly theme? You can wave your ideals and the list of cards that you've designed around all day long, but when the dust has settled, Mr. Rosewater, and you see the monster you've created, I hope you're happy.

Disturbing Trend #2: The Not so Invisible Hand
When I first noticed the growing problem of the shrinking metagame I looked around for culprits. My very first thought was that decks arose in response to the decks from the old metagame. Take a look at this:

Decks
Rebels - Fires - Wake, Tog - Goblins - X/W, Sarnia - Ravager Affinity - X/G

And with the skin removed:

Archetypes
Control - Aggro - Control, Control - Aggro - Control, Control - Aggro - Control

The Control decks are bold only to make reading the flow easier. I first thought that if there was a powerful control deck then a powerful aggro deck would rise up to beat it. Obviously the aggro deck would need to be better than the control deck or else people would just play the old control deck. This vicious pattern would continue and decks would get better and better. This was dumb dumb dumb of me, because it fails to see that the cards have to come from somewhere, namely, Wizards.

A closer examination of the evidence reveals that it wasn't simple power inflation that narrowed the metagame but direct intervention. The Rebel search mechanic was a slow method of gaining card advantage and thus bred a control deck. Fires of Yaviamaya was a random byproduct of the multicolored theme and obviously lended itself towards an aggro deck. Graveyard manipulation was just another form of card advantage and Mirari's Wake provided the basis for a powerful control deck. Goblins was practically a preconstructed archetype. The two control decks that arose after Goblins but before real Affinity (X/W and Sarnia Affinity) are interesting because one is powerful but seems like just a metagame reaction, and the other, which I've addressed already, seems like a mistake. Affinity was bred of an overbearing theme and G/X control decks rose up to combat it. Affinity is so powerful that not only have the reactionary decks not been enough to stop it, nor has a much-needed banning, nor has an entirely set been able to produce an answer to this problem.

We are seeing now what we generally see at the close of a block; metagame reaction decks that seem powerful only because of the fact that they are reactionary decks, designed to function in the current metagame. Wake emerged as the dominant control deck in a varied field at the end on Odyssey Block. X/W was put an efficient damper on the little Red men's rampage. And now, at the close of the artifact block we see a massive influx of G/X decks that, only by loading up on maindeck hate (such as four Oxidizes as an auto include), can they even compete. I'm not ragging on G/B or G/R or even the underestimated G/U, but merely ask yourself if it weren't for Affinity would these decks even be tier two?

Research and Development admittedly spends more time developing theme related cards then simple filler cards and will often try to create several "Bomby" theme based cards to really showcase the sets wares. Rather than have each set be just a newer carnival than the last set with brighter lights and louder sounds, why not make each set build on the metagame of the last and have a shifting metagame (Like in Vintage) instead of simply an escalating one.

The theory of power inflation is an ancient one, for which I can take no credit. I propose however that that theory (Which simply states that sets increase in power as they come out) stopped at the end of Saga block. It is widely accepted that Masques was a huge drop off power-wise from those that had come before it. I am proposing that, starting roughly with Odyssey block power inflation is tied to and dependant upon theme inflation. And themes and their varying relevancy are the responsibility and unfortunately the fault of Wizards.

So to sum up, as themes become more important in sets, the Type Two metagame becomes narrower and narrower.

Mark Rosewater isn't the only one at fault. In fact it may not be him at all but that rascal Gleemax! Seriously though, I'm certain that many other people at Wizards have contributed to this mounting problem. I ask only that you consider what I've said here today. If you can acknowledge the problem, you can write to Mr. Rosewater and the other Wizards employees. Maybe something will get done about it. Maybe the next six blocks have already been made and our game's fate determined.

No fate, but what we make.

Paul Gamble