>>>Dear Matt D'Avanzo! Have you read the first rule for posting of bdominia? Are there only 2 typs of environments? Are there never SPLITTED environment? Is aggro really equal aggro? Is there really no combo?

Dear random person who seems overly offended for no reason and is about to see me act just as obnoxious towards you: did you read anything I said? I suppose by your logic if you're envirionment was 25% Sligh, 25% Mono-U, 25% Keeper, and 25% Stompy you'd have maindeck COP: Red, maindeck, maindeck Aura Fracture and Red Blast, maindeck Dwarven Miners, and a maindeck Perish. No, a logical minded player would try to find broader cards (as opposed to narrow ones) for a broad envirionment. Brian has narrow cards (suited towards narrow envirionments)...but ones from conflicting envirionments.

What I mean is, if I expect a ton of sligh I play maindeck COP: Red. If I expect none and a lot of control I might have a second Shaman. If the area was both or had other beatdown like WW, Zoo, etc. I'll play Zorb since it isn't dead (theoretically) against control as it still draws with Sylvan, stalls, combos with Balance, and powers Academy (if you play it--I don't currently).

Personally, I fear he may be out of touch and living in 1995. His record says he hasn't played a sanctioned match in years. I think all he does is play fun games against random pros, most of which don't play type I seriously OR may just play slightly crazy new decks for fun (since nothing is at stake)--which is VERY cool. However it isn't representative of what is out there on the tourney scene in force. People often claim that since type I isn't supported by WotC and the pros it has no real scene so you can't really make any sort of general judgements as to what is good or bad in an envirionment. I think this is crap. It may not be official and type I may very well not attract all the best players since we don't have support, but an envirionment exists as long as people play this silly card game and not all of us are scrubs.

Basically, it's either that or the fact that he is just SO good that he thrashes everyone no matter how subpar his deck is so he never really learns anything. I mean if you kick ass all the time, why change anything?

>>>Have you ever thought about, that GOOD playing of your morph-playing opponent makes the edict in your hand senceless?

No, because my (hopefully) BETTER playing will get rid of the Morph. If not then either my opponent has had clearly better draws than I or played better than I did--in either case that constitutes legitimite grounds for winning a card game. What is not a legit reason to lose is not having the proper answer in your deck (at least when you play a deck that is supposed to have an answer to everything).

Not giving yourself the chance is selling yourself short. I had a Morphling resolve and my opponent had three more counters (all castable) to my zero and still killed the morph won that game. As Weissman would tell you the game isn't about damage--it's about cards and mana. However if you DON'T play with a card that kills the Morph (Balance is just not always the answer and even then as a one off it might not be there when you need it even with tutors/draw) you just can't stop it even if you do regain control of the game.

I'm not making claim to be the greats Keeper player in the world. However I am at least a competent player and know that I play against good competition at Neutral Ground. Morphlings die here. They die here often enough (yes, they tend to stay alive, but no, it isn't a one in twenty chance either) to warrant running Edict.

>>>Have you ever heard about this decks and that they use nonbasic lands: Mishra's Workshop-Decks, Zoo, Oath, xC-Sligh, almost every sort of Combo?

You know I've played against every single one of those decks IRL except Tubbies (unless you count J.P. and I playtesting the KEeper/Tubbies matchup a few times), but they aren't common. In the fantasy world of online magic everyone can splash whatever the hell they want into their deck people play more crazy stuff. Furthermore poeple online are generally really bad players and don't understand that putting 5 colors into a sligh or somtpy deck usually makes it suck. Combo (except the tier two Academy) is tier 3 and hosed plenty by control as it is. Shaman are good, but not 4 (because Mon's Goblin Raiders, which extra Shaman are, are bad against control)--and Miners are actually quite useless against a lot of combo (i.e. Academy the only combo deck you really need to worry about at all now). By the time you feel comfortable tapping 3 during your mainphase you've won.

Oath is a weaker Keeper (and I certainly wouldn't want to cast Shaman against an Oath deck unless I was already totally winning so the LD concept there is also a little dubious, though not an impossible feat--hello OATH TRAP).

>>>Please, tell me, have you really not realize yet, that this is not your "Keeper"-called Deck?

No kidding it's not my deck. My deck is properly constructed. Look, there is a lot of room to make alterations for envirionment or personal tastes in any deck (even Keeper), but there are some very basic things that are 100% wrong with this deck. If you don't see this, or your ardent fan-support of Brian blinds you to that I'm sorry.

>>>Are creatures like Blastoderm, Mishra's, Jnauts, Sushi, Masticore, Prot.Black Creatures, Karn, Mother of Runes, Morhling not been played in your area?

No, we try to properly construct our decks and play with good cards over here--that means no Blastoderms (he and Mana Drain are best buddies) or WW critters (WW is a joke--I could beat it with a draft deck). Secondly, I don't see how this is even slightly relevant. Abyss kills 99.5% of creatures. If you have an area where no one plays ANYTHING but pro-black, untargetable, or artifact critters then you have a case. Outside the bizarro world (the only place such an envirionment could exist) people play SOME critters that are immune to Abyss and a WHOLE LOT that aren't. Might I also mention you criticized me for using Edict, but Derm and other, better untargetables are STP resistant...but Edict takes them out. Similarly an Edict can kill the (usually) one pro-black thing on the table that won't die to Abyss. AND against Tubbies (not to mention other decks), Edict is usually just as good.

>>>Isn't it a little bit like the usage of Blood Moon, if too many people in your area are prepared for it, it's a waste of slots in your Deck or SB?

Of course not. If mono-U sides in 4 B2B and I side in REB and Aura Fractures...they still get the better of that deal. I have 4 turns when/if Morphling hits (usually) to do something. With the sheer ammount of card drawing and must-counter spells a lot changes in 4 turns. Furthermore there are MANY times Morphling gets played and hits when control is not 100% established. Because he's hard to kill and a fast clock, doing so is not always the wrong play. For example if I Balance away both our hands to 0 after your Stroke for 6, and you topdeck Morph are you NOT going to play him? Don't you ever enter topdecking races? Don't you ever have things slip through counters BECAUSE in the words of Weissman himself years ago: "The Deck" is not a permission-based deck, but one that deals with threats in the most efficient way possible and uses counters as a last resort or for things that can't be solved with removal (i.e. draw spells).

>>>Is it really astonishing, that it seems to me, that some of you speak a little bit too fast and that some don't want to think, but to declare, that their card-choises are good, so must be the choises of Brain Weissman bad ...

No, it is really astonishing to me that you'd expect a site full of people dedicated to type I DISCUSSION to bow down and worship a clearly bad version of a good deck because someone we all recognize as an icon built it. No, on this site we DISCUSS things. I clearly explained why I believe many of these card choices are clearly a mistake. The 2002 "The Deck" looks like as pile because it is a pile--not because it doesn't look my deck. not plaiyng Abyss was smart is due to the incredible presence of Mother of Runes and Blastoderm that run rampant in type I.

>>>His school of thought is land d.

I know this (Rakso, I play 5 Strips and 2 shaman sometimes too), but 4 Shaman is STILL 2 too many. This isn't even debatable. 3 I could see, but I strongly disagree with. 4 is absoutely ridiculous. They aren't Uktabis....they can be used over and over and suck ass in multiples.

And as I said before: land-D doesn't work against everything. Mono-Black, Sligh, Stompy, and Mono-U are all VERY popular and nigh-impervious to Keeper-induced mana screw.

>>>Picture this: You have 5 life. Your opponent has 20. For the most part, you're in control of the game, except for the fact he's dealing 2 damamge to you every turn and you have no card in hand to stop it. [SNIP] Wouldn't it be nice to have placed a Mirror Universe down a few turns ago just for a moment like this?

Picture this: you're at 5 life against sligh and vamp down to three to play Mirror. They giggle at your tapping of 6 mana mainphase and POP/Fireblast you into oblivion. Furthermore, with 1 D.Blow, a disenchant, zorb, and up to 4 shaman after board how is scroll a problem? Why in the world wouldn't you Vamp (you said you had a Vamp in your example) for Zorb or a scroll killer?

>>>Mana Short has always been good.

Basically it's like comparing Giant Growth to Bolt. Mana Short is something to fight an EOT counter war over, but it STILL requires you to have something to follow it up with. A very conditional card and certainly something I'd not be happy to topdeck in a race. And Rakso, I think it's been something that's come and gone over the years. Playing this when fof was unrestricted would be retarded...I think (THINK) it was absent then. If not then, well, it was bad then and he shouldn't have played it since he had 4 FoF (which does the job of mana short anddraws cards as a bonus). I think Mana Short is okay now with less eot bait...I'm not really questioning this card. It's a _logical_ choice, though not optimal IMO.

Lastly Mako, you said Weissman's "The Deck" is different in philosophy than Keeper. I need to disagree somewhat. Yes, if you compare Weissman's original deck to Mike Longs origianl Millstone/Augury "Keeper" they focus on different card. However, the concepts are identical. Get a lock (Scepter/Augury) and a threat (Serra/Millstone) after nullifying his threats in a card advantage manner (Moats/Abyss). "The Deck" is basically Weissman's own personal version of a deck that a zillion other people play. All those decks, though their cards might change, employ the same principal somehow or they aren't effective.

Although Weissman chooses to focus on LD and some of us choose to focus on other things the underlying concept of control has always been the same. You are supossed to deal with your opponent's threats in a manner that generates card advantage (real or virtual). In Weissman's LD strategy he trades one-for-one with strips and 1-for-many (maybe) with moxen in order to leave MANY dead (uncastable) cards in hand (virtual card advantage) until he can get real (negative) card advantage with a mindtwist. Abyss still falls into that category. One Abyss kills tons of critters on the board over time and turns many more not cast into deadcards. It also prevents the opponent from gaining more than card parity with, say, Dwarven Miner or Shaman. There just isn't a reason.

--Matt