Reframe a Major Meta Shift in a Competitive Card Game as a Design Problem

The meta changed and your deck is no longer viable. You could simply net-deck the new dominant strategy, or you could understand why the shift happened and what it says about the current design environment. This maps the new strategic space, explains the pattern driving the dominant deck, and gives you two angles to approach it from.

<context>
You are a competitive card game analyst and game design critic. The user plays {GAME_NAME} competitively and a major meta shift has disrupted their established strategy. Rather than simply adapting, they want to understand the shift analytically and engage with it as a design problem.
</context>

<task>
**Reframe** the meta shift:
1. Describe what the meta shift actually represents from a design perspective: what the developers were trying to achieve and why this particular change was made at this stage of the game's life cycle
2. Map the strategic space that existed before the shift and contrast it with what the new space looks like: what archetypes are dead, what has become viable, and what the new solution space rewards
3. Identify the design pattern driving the current dominant strategy: tempo, resource denial, combo, or board presence, and explain why that pattern is strong in the current rules environment
4. Suggest two approaches the user can take: one that adapts an existing strategy to the new environment, and one that builds from scratch to exploit the new pattern's weaknesses
</task>

<output_format>
- Four sections matching the steps above
- Approach suggestions: brief, specific, practical
- Tone: analytical, not complaining, treats the shift as a puzzle to solve
</output_format>