[Deck] Dredge

[jares]

Yeah, Noble Hierarch was a really poor example. But about the triggers on the stack, you can just choose what's resolving first, you don't really have to make a 'resolving pile'.

I might be mistaken, but strictly speaking, I do think that a "resolving pile" needs to be properly sorted to avoid any technicalities that could complicate things. These triggers all happen simultaneously, and we do need to order all of them before resolving any - and I believe that Mojeh is correct in that we do need to put the "exile triggers" on the stack first so that these triggers are "pushed" to the bottom of the stack by the "token triggers", thus allowing the token triggers to resolve first.

Do let us know if we're mistaken.

Cheers,
jares

[Mojeh]

Yeah, Noble Hierarch was a really poor example. But about the triggers on the stack, you can just choose what's resolving first, you don't really have to make a 'resolving pile'.

Usually yes, I am just saying because I had trouble explaining the stacking once.
It's always good to let your opponent know that you are aware of what you're doing exactly.
On a related topic, it might be useful to declare every relevant phase beginning, triggers, stacking and etc. I've seen many times the opponent saying "before entering that phase", or "before triggers", and so on. That will help yourself to remember every step, as it becomes spontaneous.

[jares]

Usually yes, I am just saying because I had trouble explaining the stacking once.
It's always good to let your opponent know that you are aware of what you're doing exactly.
On a related topic, it might be useful to declare every relevant phase beginning, triggers, stacking and etc. I've seen many times the opponent saying "before entering that phase", or "before triggers", and so on. That will help yourself to remember every step, as it becomes spontaneous.

I actually do this on purpose, announcing every phase, trigger, and response out loud just to make sure that everything is properly played-out, even when nothing really happens in a certain phase for that turn. Doing this also helps remind me of these triggers too, minimizing the likelihood that I'll do a misplay by forgetting a trigger (and we do work with a lot of triggers).

Cheers,
jares

[Michael Keller]

Report is up!

[Mojeh]

@Jares: I do that too, really works as a mnemonic solution ^^

@Hollywood: Congratz on your finish! =D
Would you play a different list if you could?
I guess the Firestorms were underused, I am right?
Maybe -3 Firestorm, +1 Nature's Claim, +1 Elesh +1 something.

[Michael Keller]

Firestorm is one of those cards that, while incredibly useful for what it does, still is only used in those match-ups where it can truly shine - like Affinity and Elves. Those decks are fast, but this deck can be just as fast if not faster.

I am not so sure cutting Firestorm is a good idea just yet, but to be honest its primary use was against Maverick and even then if you're staring down a turn one Mother of Runes, you either have to kill it (using Firestorm) or go all-in with LED, which is a much better plan.

I would actually consider going with another Darkblast into the sideboard, making it a 1/1 split. That card is just awesome. Additionally, if you're running against Elves or Affinity, sometimes just straight up Combo to kill them is the best course of action, of course bringing in Grudge and Claim for those problematic artifacts like Plating. Firestorm still is incredibly good in those match-ups, so cutting it would be hard.

At this point, I don't know if I would cut it. Probably not. I like three Claims and one Ray; that seems fine against decks running bad cards like Leyline, which we can dig for with our filter spells if we already don't have it or mulligan for it. Ray gives you additional inevitability in the event it is dredged and gives you that two for one against decks like Enchantress.

As for Elesh, you can run it, but I never do because Reanimator is kind of a lost cause. If you're running LED, you can race the Reanimator player game one. Game two you can adjust accordingly, but I don't see a lot of it in my meta which is why I didn't overload on grave-hate in my sideboard for the Open. I played two Purge, which can act as a four-of in the event they're dredged, and that's good enough. They wound up being great in the mirror, hitting the key cards at key times.

Faerie Macabre is fine, but I don't like having to mulligan to find it - not in this build.

[jares]

I am not so sure cutting Firestorm is a good idea just yet, but to be honest its primary use was against Maverick and even then if you're staring down a turn one Mother of Runes, you either have to kill it (using Firestorm) or go all-in with LED, which is a much better plan.

I find that Firestorm helps in the situations where the opponent already has the advantage - something that LED doesn't seem to be very good at. Being able to go all-in with LED without being disrupted is definitely a good thing, but it seems to me that this scenario is still within the bounds of what I would treat as a favorable situation.

It isn't that LED is a win-more card (because there definitely are match-ups and scenarios that you would otherwise be unable to win without LED) - it's just that I feel that LED isn't very helpful in the direst of situations, which is probably why a lot of people do board it out in games 2 and 3 (which might not always be wise).

Kind Regards,
jares

[Sedris]

I might be mistaken, but I think that the lists that are usually being noted in primers are the ones that have achieved significant success, if any. I'm unsure of whether or not the quadlazer list fits that description (it probably does).

Quodlazer only achieved success in germany, but i think, if some guys would have played it on gp indy, there would have been more dredge in the t8, because the facts are, that the quodlazer lists, or the quodlazer -1 ichorid -1 pimp +2 citadel -lists are more consistent, than the Lists which run DR. But nobody can prove that, unfortunally.

[jares]

Quodlazer only achieved success in germany, but i think, if some guys would have played it on gp indy, there would have been more dredge in the t8, because the facts are, that the quodlazer lists, or the quodlazer -1 ichorid -1 pimp +2 citadel -lists are more consistent, than the Lists which run DR. But nobody can prove that, unfortunally.

Honestly, as I have previously noted in the now old thread, I believe that "consistency" can be quantified into a numerical value that defines the likelihood of an event ever happening. It will be wildly complicated to summarize everything into one number (I don't even want to think about trying that), but I try to simplify things by evaluating the probabilities concerning the following:

• Opening Hand
• In-game lines of play (probability of top-decking a card, dredging into one of the graveyard-relevant pieces, etc.).
• Specific scenarios that are tagged as major concerns (sideboard-related issues, addressing anti-hate, etc.)

I might be missing some things in this list, but this is what I could think of at the moment.

Having said all that, I think that these differences in configuration are really based on what we want the deck to do "consistently" (e.g. DR to combo-off, LED to win in the first few turns, Phantasmagorian to avoid interaction, etc.) rather than on the contrast of which "plan" is able to win more often.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

[HokusSchmokus]

@Hollywood: Maybe move the 4th Therapy back in the main? That would clear one board spot for darkblast.


@Sedris

Actually Quadlaser is at least of what I know the best performing list in Europe "officially"
with Julian Top4ing Eternal Weekend Mol

Also, I think our group has quite some power in store for BoM, we have to continue the trend Erik(Brot_ohne_Kruste) started:P

I call it now: One of us 5 or 6 people fromn germany repping the dredge at BoM will at least top16, likely top8

[Sedris]

• Opening Hand
• In-game lines of play (probability of top-decking a card, dredging into one of the graveyard-relevant pieces, etc.).
• Specific scenarios that are tagged as major concerns (sideboard-related issues, addressing anti-hate, etc.)

I might be missing some things in this list, but this is what I could think of at the moment.

Having said all that, I think that these differences in configuration are really based on what we want the deck to do "consistently" (e.g. DR to combo-off, LED to win in the first few turns, Phantasmagorian to avoid interaction, etc.) rather than on the contrast of which "plan" is able to win more often.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

I just think that the DR plan is weaker than playing 8 Study effects +4 Breakthrough and +4 Therapy for fast gaining of zombies/ichorids and moebas. Not playing DR and its targets leaves more slots open for outlets & drawspells >>> less mulligans.

e.g.: A Flayer List wants these cards to Dredge in: 2-3 Dread Return, 1 Flayer/target xy, 4 Narcomoeba, 2-3 Ichorid, 3-4 Cabal Therapy, 4 Bridge from Below (Black Creatures for Ichorids aren't counted). Ignoring Therapy, because it isn't a dead card in your hand often, you want 11-14 Cards in your Grave, so you play 11-14 potentially candidates for being dead cards in your hand. Usually, you play 12-14 from these dead cards, as i expected in Hollywoods list.

A Quodlazer List (or Quodlazer -2+2citadel) wants these cards to Dredge in: 4 Moebas, 3-4 Ichorid, 4 Bridge from Below and 4 Cabal Therapy (Black Creatures for Ichorids aren't counted). Ignoring Threrapy, because it isn't a dead card in your hand often, you want 11-12 Cards in you Grave, so you play 11-12 potentially candidates for being dead cards in your hand.

Yes, this says nothing until now.

The DR list has 3-4 Putrid Imp, 3-4 Careful Study, 3-4 Breakthrough, 3-4 Cabal Therapy, 4 Faithless Looting, 4 Lion's Eye Diamond as discard outlets, so in conclusion you have 22-24 discardoutlets, because you won't play only 3 Pimp, 3 study, 3 Bthrough and 3 Cabal, you just cut 1-2 from these down to 3 (otherwhise it would be 20-24). But normally, you won't go over 22.

The DR list only plays 11 Dredgers (just taking Hollywoods list in the primer as an example).

The Quodlazer list (or Quodlazer-2+2tarnished citadel) has 3-4 Putrid imp, 4 Careful Study, 4 Breakthrough, 4 Faithless Looting, 4 Cabal Therapy and 4 Lion's Eye Diamond as discardoutlets, which means you have potentially 23-24 Discard outlets, normally 24.

The Quodlazer plays 12 Dredgers, sometimes only 3 Thugs and 1 Darkblast, but 12, ever.

The normal Quodlazer list plays 12 Lands (the quodlazer-2+2 citadel plays 14, sometimes they play 13).

The DR List plays 13 lands (taking the one from the primer as an example again)

So in conclusion the DR List looks like this:

13 Lands (here cephalid coliseum is counted as a land, but i know, its more the good draweffect, than a blue mana source)
22 outlets
11 Dredgers
14 cards to dredge-in (means 14 potentially dead cards in your opening hand)

And the quodlazer like this:

12 Lands
24 outlets
12 Dredgers
12 cards to dredge-in (means 12 potentially dead cards in your opening hand)

Or, with -2+2 like this:

14 Lands
23 outlets
12 dredgers
11 cards to dredge-in (means 11 potentially dead cards in your opening hand)

Comparing the normal quodlazer with the DR-list...

...Dr plays +1 land >> less mulligans for lands
...Dr plays cirka +2 cards to dredge in >> more mulligans for potentially dead cards in hand, but if you dredge, you have a higher chance to hit relevant cards. Also, here you must calculate in, that dredging only flayer/drtargetxy, its a dead card in grave until you dredge dread return.

...Quodlazer plays +1 dredger >> less mulligans for hands without dredgers (yes, there are hands, you can keep without them)
...Quodlazer plays +2 outlets >> less mulligans for no outlet

Yes, the contrast is only marginally noticeable, but there is one.

So I can say, quodlazer is more consistent in doing their plan as fast as possible, than the DR list is consistent in doing their plan as fast as possible. ;)

[Sedris]

@Hollywood: Maybe move the 4th Therapy back in the main? That would clear one board spot for darkblast.


@Sedris

Actually Quadlaser is at least of what I know the best performing list in Europe "officially"
with Julian Top4ing Eternal Weekend Mol

Also, I think our group has quite some power in store for BoM, we have to continue the trend Erik(Brot_ohne_Kruste) started:P

I call it now: One of us 5 or 6 people fromn germany repping the dredge at BoM will at least top16, likely top8

I wanted to go to BoM too, but i missed the train to the trial, and don't want to go there without byes.

But i'll be in ghent for sure ;)

[HokusSchmokus]

I wanted to go to BoM too, but i missed the train to the trial, and don't want to go there without byes.

But i'll be in ghent for sure ;)

We didn't even have a trial near us yet...

Still, you should go there. Less byes= more dredgung!

[Sedris]

We didn't even have a trial near us yet...

Still, you should go there. Less byes= more dredgung!

I live in austria, not in germany, and there was a trial in slovenjia, just mentioned.

But ure right, i should just go there for annihilating some more guys.

[K1w1]

Please give me your results for BoM.
unfortunately i can't go to it, due to the date. Writing my final examination (21.5 - 25.5)
It isn't easy to travel from France to Germany at sunday night and write the examination.
@Sedris: I don't think it has much to do with consistency. Moreover, you just don't need them. And what is consistent with LED in Dredge? Hmm, i sacrificed my LED : "ok, crypt! Remove it pls"
But you're right by saying that you will have more studies in your hand. (or breakthrough)

K1w1

[Izor]

Awesome Primer and report, Hollywood. I fully appreciate the work, well done!


I'll agree that the German Quad list could be mentioned in the OP, it's arguably the most consistent LED lists in existence and it did show some good results over here in Germany and in Europe in general. Europe often sets the trends for the American Metagame (see Maverick or Pre-Lootings LEDless Dredge), so I'd at least expect it to be played more in the US in the future as well.



Different topic: I'm currently doing some extensive testing of the Quad list and my own LEDless list. I'm focusing on actual speed of the decks, because the only real way to collect empirical data for speed is to actually just goldfish both lists. I'm doing 50 goldfishes with both decks, collecting all the relevant information, and I hope to come to a valid conclusion that shows how much faster LED Dredge currently is, which list is more consistent and which list has to mulligan more, etc. It's something I'm doing for myseld, but I'll put it up here for everyone who's interested.

[Fr_Apo]

Hey guys,

First of, I do love the new half of primer you did there.

I m french and had been running the old german list (the 8 dorks one) for years before misstep came in (played LED dredge previously but this time seems too far away to even be remembered).
Switched to LED dredge since Amsterdam (where I missed day two-ing thanks to being paired last round against Storm that were obviously faster and more resilient than me...), then faithless came out and the deck started to wreck out people again. I have been playing dredge for many years, just love to play magic the other way around.

I missed byes for the BoM last saturday (finished 3/87) but a friend of mine took 2 running 70/75 cards of the same dredge deck =) - Yeah 2 dredges top 3 in a 90ish people event, felt good.
I was running the GP Indy list with -1 dread return main +1 cabal therapy.
And this sb : 4 chain of vapor, 1 nature's claim, 2 nether shadow, 2 ichorid, 1 dread return, 1 iona, 1 elesh, 2 ancient grudge, 1 careful study.

Went :
2-0 vs enchantress that opened twice wheel of sun and moon in hand (winning the dice roll was key^^)
2-0 vs esperblade
2-0 vs cawcartell (mon goblin,chief's list)
2-0 vs TES (felt gooooooood)
2-0 vs elfball (flayer has stolen game one in a pretty manner in front of 12 elves ^^)
id
id
Quarterfinal : 2-0 vs esperblade
Semifinal : 1-2 vs dredge (my mate who finally won the tournament, I won g1 easily but he opened two faery macabre g2 and one g3 that sealed the deal :( )

The list felt really good all day.
I don't know how can you play with no DR main against deck like esperblade. Sure when they can't stop you from going off and lost dice roll you will just crush them but during testing and tournaments I won numerous game where I would have just been dead to batterskull nor jitte, my first esperblade opponent did stack 4 counters on his jitte but could'nt steal g1 where a simple aggro plan would have missed (he goes t1 thoughtseize + fow on my turn1, then wasteland t2...).
Also, DR is really mvp in MU where the opponent can remove your bridges pretty easily.

I definitely got to do more testing with your quadlaser to figure out good it is but I felt like you are trying to maximise the chance you have to get a perfect hand via chosing to lose to any complicate situation you can face.
What does your metagame look like?
In France, most people are running stoneblade(esper or not) / maverick and rug, and being sure to be faster than a turn two ooze on the draw seems really key to me while getting answers to fast batterskull snapped into play, rug MU in g1 seems not to change drastically no matter which list you run.

I wish you good luck on top8ing the BoM, hopping you won't be the only dredge deck getting in : )

Some questions to seal this post :
- Can we get your last quadlaser brew? The sideboard particularly.
- How are you feeling in the maverick match up?
- How are you siding in against esperblade? The match up feels pretty good but I am not quite sure about my sideboard tech.

[Michael Keller]

At this point, in some match-ups I'm not so sure boarding out LED is the correct line of play. I kept it in against Maverick and blew the game open. It's seriously such a ridiculous enabler in this deck.

I'll be sure to update the O.P. with the Q. list.

[jares]

Different topic: I'm currently doing some extensive testing of the Quad list and my own LEDless list. I'm focusing on actual speed of the decks, because the only real way to collect empirical data for speed is to actually just goldfish both lists. I'm doing 50 goldfishes with both decks, collecting all the relevant information, and I hope to come to a valid conclusion that shows how much faster LED Dredge currently is, which list is more consistent and which list has to mulligan more, etc. It's something I'm doing for myseld, but I'll put it up here for everyone who's interested.

I'll be looking forward to the results of this study. Given the number of possible combinations for the opening hand, I would suggest that you increase the sample size for the number of goldfishes as much as you can, as the reliability of your findings will really be dependent on the sample size. I'll be especially interested in the statistics for the mulligans, as I haven't personally looked into these figures under a microscope.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Comparing the normal quodlazer with the DR-list...

...Dr plays +1 land >> less mulligans for lands
...Dr plays cirka +2 cards to dredge in >> more mulligans for potentially dead cards in hand, but if you dredge, you have a higher chance to hit relevant cards. Also, here you must calculate in, that dredging only flayer/drtargetxy, its a dead card in grave until you dredge dread return.

...Quodlazer plays +1 dredger >> less mulligans for hands without dredgers (yes, there are hands, you can keep without them)
...Quodlazer plays +2 outlets >> less mulligans for no outlet

Yes, the contrast is only marginally noticeable, but there is one.

So I can say, quodlazer is more consistent in doing their plan as fast as possible, than the DR list is consistent in doing their plan as fast as possible. ;)

I was thinking that you might want to do the same analysis for LEDless when compared to LED, much like what Izor is planning to do. That way, you guys can compare notes.

Cheers,
jares