[Article] Legacy Dredge

[frogboy]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/18948_Ideas_Unbound_Legacy_Dredge.html


If you are not playing Dredge in Legacy, you are doing it unbelievably wrong.

The deck routinely deploys 9/9s on turn 2 or 3 and brings some number of 2/2s to the party for value. While doing this, you get to Cabal Therapy your opponent two or three times, and if for some reason that isn't good enough, you also have unlimited 3/1s that leave Zombies behind when they die. There is very little your opponent can do about any of this. I have won multiple games, in tournaments, in which I never literally never played a land nor cast a spell.

[Mark Sun]

...what a steaming pile of arrogance. I dunno, I read the article, just didn't feel good about it the entire way, to be honest.

Dredge is incredibly swinging, and playing the LED version is even more all-in. I usually enjoy the Legacy articles on SCG, but this one is a downer. :really:

[Meister_Kai]

I believe they are trying to do one of three things with an article like this:

1. Get the cards in dredge (which has historically been a pretty cheap deck to put together, without LEDs that is) to skyrocket in price, as they are mostly cheap.

2. Hype this deck for a reason I cannot fathom. Perhaps so people will hate out it and its cohorts (reanimator) and people won't whine about how GY decks chained wins in large events?

3. Genuinely inform the public blah blah.

Either that guy is sort of an ass or Starcity is just making sure that total noobs won't come to their tournament only to get trounced by Blazing Archon. Or $. I don't know which.

[Shawn]

In game 2, if you cast Tireless Tribe on turn 1 and they cast Tormod's Crypt, then you discard an Ancient Grudge, blow up their Crypt, discard a card with dredge, and cast Breakthrough, your opponent is completely kold to your Troll and Zombies.

How do you handle a situation where you don't a Grudge, and they have a Relic or Crypt, and a fast clock? I don't know about you, but I don't always get the nut draws with dredge, even though it does mulligans well. It would've been more helpful to explain how to play the deck in these situations, rather than just saying "Just Grudge it/Chain it back/then win".

[Otter]

The one of the biggest reasons that legacy is an attractive format is that there is no truly dominant deck. Coming out of the gates saying that Dredge is the best deck ever made, has no weaknesses, and all that is a pretty good joke. Maybe it's just his writing style, but I feel like a decent dose of realism and humility would've helped it a lot.

[umbowta]

1. Get the cards in dredge (which has historically been a pretty cheap deck to put together, without LEDs that is) to skyrocket in price, as they are mostly cheap

This is what I took out of the article. Though it was still an informative read...with a slight air of arrogance.

[Mark Sun]

How do you handle a situation where you don't a Grudge, and they have a Relic or Crypt, and a fast clock? I don't know about you, but I don't always get the nut draws with dredge, even though it does mulligans well. It would've been more helpful to explain how to play the deck in these situations, rather than just saying "Just Grudge it/Chain it back/then win".

That's one of the things that turned me off about this article. I played Dredge for a good while, and nowhere is it even close to that easy to fight hate. I was nowhere close to an experienced pilot, but I'm assuming if you read this article today and have this assembled for Sunday without experience, you'd be in the same shoes as I was.

I do sense that Meister_Kai has the right idea (Theory #1).

[Cabal_chan]

Who is the author? This Max McCall?

[Bardo]

Who is the author? This Max McCall?

Max McCall = Frogboy

[grahf]

Yeah... I learned some things about the deck, and how it can play through hate, but the arrogant tone was really offputting.


Usually, your opponents will play their hate cards, then look at you with a sort of expectant half-smile silently asking if you want to concede.

Really?

[frogboy]

@Kai: Writers aren't given assignments. We write about whatever we want. We are also not paid nearly enough to support grand conspiracies.

@Shawn: Dredge via your draw step until you find Grudge or Therapy or whatever you're digging for. Even if you don't find a Grudge, a couple of Bridges, a Narcomoeba, and an Ichorid is a fair amount of pressure, and you might force your opponent to blow their hate anyway. Note that if you are just clocking with Ichorids and Bridges, you might want to skip dredging so as to not make Ravenous Trap live.

@Otter: I may or may not address your claim in another article in the future.

editing to address posts while I was writing:

@grahf: A non-zero amount of people believe that playing a Tormod's Crypt against Dredge means you immediately win the game.

@jaynel: cross-posting:


I probably should have mentioned why there are only three Studies and three Ichorids in the article.

Study is the worst outlet and the worst draw spell. You still want more outlets and draw spells, but I find the fourth Therapy is more important than the twelfth draw effect, and Therapy functions as an outlet if needed. Ichorid isn't good in multiples until you are well into the midgame; feeding two Ichorids per turn on turns two and three is very difficult unless you have resolved a draw effect, in which case you don't need those Ichorids to win.

Crucially, the deck is configured such that the only non-DR non-flashback bullet you need to dig for is Chain. If Leyline et al became more popular, the fourth Study might become more important to find Chain, but right now, it's not.

Having Breakthrough in after boarding allows you to sequence Grudge or Therapy into an immediate Breakthrough. Usually when you are having to grind games out with Narcomoebas and Zombies against a Crypt, you're behind on the board, and need to use Breakthrough to explode before the other guy peels another piece of hate.

I'm also confused why people hate playing less than four Leyline. Like, sure, you want them in your opening hand, but you also want, you know, all those other sideboard cards. Is the argument 'you need a fourth hate card for the mirror and Reanimator?' That might be valid, but what are you planning to cut? Is the argument instead 'a different sideboard card is superior because you can draw it on turn two and not be kold?'

[Jaynel]

I thought the article was fine, I can see some of the arrogance, but to play Ichorid I think you really need that kind of mentality of "no fear" and that your deck is going to crush everything. Obviously when Merfolk gets the nuts draw of Vial + Relic + multiple Lords, you're unfortunately likely to scoop things up and go to game three. But I think Max states it rather well:


Dredge wins basically every game one because its opponents are virtually unable to interact with it. Your opponents only really gain the ability to interact via their sideboard cards, and if they keep a seven card hand without a Crypt or whatever, it's pretty likely that game 2 will just be a repeat of the game 1 bloodbath; they have to mulligan accordingly. As a corollary to this, your opponents basically have to keep any hand with a sideboard card. Once you defeat their sideboard cards, the rest of their hand is probably pretty mediocre.

I think most people don't know how to play against Dredge. Players will overvalue hate cards tremendously, and when they're not backed with a clock or more disruption, Dredge will likely win.

Some thoughts and questions:

I'd definitely want the 4th Careful Study. That card is really insane at finding what you need, given the redundancy of the deck (11 rainbow lands, 11 dredgers, 11 draw effects, 11 discard outlets). And especially postboard, it's incredible at digging into your answers. I would never board any number out. I'd also like to see the 4th Ichorid, because it gives you more flexibility when boarding (I feel much more comfortable having 3 Ichorids post board than having 2).

I understand the logic of keeping Breakthrough postboard, but until you deal with the hate, it will just sit in your hand being rather useless. I think Careful Study is much more valuable postboard, as it both digs for answers and provides you with explosiveness after dealing with the Crypt or Relic or Leyline. I board out all 4 Breakthroughs in most matchups, and never board out any Careful Study.

And 3 Leyline seems weak when you depend on having it in your opening and can't dig into it.

I disagree with having Dread Return targets as "answers" to hate, it seems flimsy to me.

My board (for a similar maindeck) looks like this:
4 Leyline of the Void
4 Chain of Vapor
3 Ancient Grudge
3 Firestorm
1 Woodfall Primus/Terastodon (Adan and I were discussing this versus Terastodon - while the latter handles 1 more permanent, Primus can deal with a topdecked card more easily. Still unsure which is better)

I board out 4 Breakthrough and 1 Thug in most matchups, and usually 1 Ichorid and a Putrid Imp as well. I rarely board out Therapy, and never Careful Study.

[Zilla]

I thought the article was informative and thorough. The arrogance doesn't bother me, but that's likely because I know Max in real life and recognize it as an idiom in his writing rather than a genuine personality trait. I think my favorite part of this is that between Max and Steve Menendian, SCG has not one but two Legacy writers who have been banned from their forums. Good times.

[Kuma]

Wouldn't Sadistic Hypnotist be better against combo than Flame-kin Zealot? If you strip their entire hand, you should have all the time you need to win, and you don't need as many zombie tokens to make it happen.

[Bardo]

The arrogance doesn't bother me, but that's likely because I know Max in real life and recognize it as an idiom in his writing rather than a genuine personality trait. I think my favorite part of this is that between Max and Steve Menendian, SCG has not one but two Legacy writers who have been banned from their forums. Good times.

I'm happy to be a character reference too. IRL, Max is very cool and humble. I'm a bit turned off by in-person arrogance and have never once thought that about froggy.

[Meister_Kai]

@Kai: Writers aren't given assignments. We write about whatever we want. We are also not paid nearly enough to support grand conspiracies.

Well with that out of the way, I have to ask:

1. Judging from your stated professed use of this deck, why haven't I ever seen you post to either Dredge thread on this forum (maybe you did, and I just didn't see it)? I don't think I've seen any tournaments reports either, which is odd if you have done was well as you say you have.

2. Isn't "wasting" slots on SB'ding in Tribes as bad as SB'ding in DR targets?

3.
A non-zero amount of people believe that playing a Tormod's Crypt against Dredge means you immediately win the game.

This I can definitely attest to. Best part of the article was the bit about the smile. While the article was overall sort of off-putting with its arrogance, I have to say I did have a hardly laugh or two.

[paK0]

Well, the article was good. I liked reading it and as long as it has sufficent information I don't care too much about the style.

Well, but the hate cards are stronger than you give them credit for. I played Dredge for some time and hate is really scary. I know that a lot of people use their hate wrong, bot the ones who know what to do usually end up winning if they draw their hate. Thats why I changed decks, and Crypt has won too many games to believe in the "its useless" thing dredge players seem to have going on.

[frogboy]

Well with that out of the way, I have to ask:

1. Judging from your stated professed use of this deck, why haven't I ever seen you post to either Dredge thread on this forum (maybe you did, and I just didn't see it)? I don't think I've seen any tournaments reports either, which is odd if you have done was well as you say you have.

I post in the LEDless one occasionally. Any of my posts in the LED side would basically be trolling. I write brief internal reports for my team forums, but reports consisting of one-sentence game summaries are useless and reports that actually communicate what happened are super long and time consuming.


2. Isn't "wasting" slots on SB'ding in Tribes as bad as SB'ding in DR targets?

No, because you side Tribes in against basically everything and the targets stay on the bench unless needed. Chosen comes in a fair amount of the time, but it's superfluous in game one.

I wasn't really trying to be arrogant when I wrote the article. It just happens that the deck is not close the best in the format and most of the hate cards are pretty easy to beat, and it's hard to communicate that *without* sounding arrogant.

[umbowta]

It just happens that the deck is not close the best in the format and most of the hate cards are pretty easy to beat, and it's hard to communicate that *without* sounding arrogant.

Too true. When you stand firmly behind your opinion that's just what happens. I'm just glad to hear you say you're not on the driving up prices for SCG kick...cuz I still need three more Bridges. :tongue:

[Volt]

Max has been pwning the Pacific Northwest metagame with his slow-roll Dredge deck for a few months now. He just doesn't get all excited about it and spam the boards every time he wins a tournament. I'd put aside hurt feelings and listen to the guy.

[xsockmonkeyx]

Max has been pwning the Pacific Northwest metagame with his slow-roll Dredge deck for a few months now. He just doesn't get all excited about it and spam the boards every time he wins a tournament. I'd put aside hurt feelings and listen to the guy.

My experience with him on the team boards is that if you start to get butthurt then there's a good chance you are wrong and need to reevaluate your view of reality.

The article was excellent, but I do agree with the criticism that the discussion of playing through hate needs to be more thorough. That stuff isnt exactly as simple as "point and click with Ancient Grudge".

[Nidd]

This article really makes me think about resleeving my good ol' Dredge and suprising everyone in my local Meta with it...

[grahf]

I thought the article was fine, I can see some of the arrogance, but to play Ichorid I think you really need that kind of mentality of "no fear" and that your deck is going to crush everything.

This actually explains a lot.

[Forbiddian]

@ Frogboy: You claim in your opening that the Storm matchup is unwinnable. How do you feel about the new metagame, which is consistently shoving 4+ Storm combo players into the top 16?

[pi4meterftw]

Arrogance is never a reason to dismiss good information. But this isn't good information. WTF:

Ravenous Trap is also easy. Cabal Therapy it away. If Therapy isn't in your hand, you have to dredge into it. This allows them to Trap you, but if you still have an outlet, you can just keep dredging. The ideal line involves finding a Cabal Therapy and a creature, then not dredging during your draw step, flashing back Therapy on Trap, and then using Breakthrough/Coliseum/Study to bin your library after the coast is clear. Sometimes your opponents float a Trap with Top to avoid Therapy; just Grudge their Top before getting the Trap with Therapy.

Yeah, I guess that my opponent is playing trap. Better grudge the top just in case.

[Happy Gilmore]

I don't get this article. Are you trying to say that no one plays this deck and that it is the best deck out there? Thats what it seems to me. The data disagree's with you on both accounts.

Dredge consistenly has one of the biggest percentages of players at any one tournament. Also, it has one of the lowest percentages of those individuals making T16 and T8. Also I've played many many games against dredge pre and post board with Zoo and counterbalance, and no matter how good the pilot it is still rough for dredge post board.

Graveyard hate at the moment is at an all time high. How can you suggest dredge right now to someone unfamiliar with the format? Anyone who picks this deck up for the first time and playes it on Sunday is going to be left with a very sour taste in their mouths for this format.

[Muradin]

Great article, I liked your style of writing. I don't think that was real arrogance but rather some etertaining style of writing.

My maindeck list is only 2 cards away from yours and I've also been rocking with it.


I thought the article was fine, I can see some of the arrogance, but to play Ichorid I think you really need that kind of mentality of "no fear" and that your deck is going to crush everything.


To tell the truth, this is exactly what I feel whenever I play Ichorid.

For me it was not so informative but I definitely will play 1 terastodon in my Sideboard from now on to combat Lands and Enchantress / Staxx.

[BreathWeapon]

Disagree with the LED and Bloodghast points, LED's main argument is that it gives the deck a game vs. Storm and Bloodghast becomes a "monster" in game 2 because when you're DDDing you don't need to have an Undiscovered Paradise or Dakmor Salvage to make it good, you just need to have a land in hand when you start the game (I've played versions with BG that don't use the bounce lands at all). I don't buy the SBing Tireless Tribe is a waste of SB space either, Leyline of the Void and even Chain of Vapor sometimes just flat out suck, they are so narrow in what they do that I don't even bother with them any more; Ray and the Elephant get the job done most of the time.

Not sure I agree with Angel in the SB, usually my answer to Blazing Archon is to just Dread Return Iona and say Black - you'll win the damage race between her, Narcomoeba and Pimps for sure, where destroying the Blazing Archon often just gets him Reanimated again if you can't alpha strike. Also less than 4 Ichorids is wrong, period, you need them vs. Crypt and co.

But yeah, I agree, playing Ichorid feels like cheating and I love that feeling - not to mention the price of the deck is laughable in comparison to the rest of the field given its competitiveness.

[kicks_422]

How can you race Blazing Archon with Iona?

[4eak]

Thanks for the article; I appreciate it. I like to see articles from expert players. If it means anything, I think your tone was fine.

Reasons I believe Dredge hasn't and will not be performing as well as it could:


Many Legacy veterans can pilot Dredge game 1, but few can pilot it effectively after sideboarding.
The deck is extremely atypical (unique even), and so many don't have the experience to see the correct lines of play (which are sometimes counterintuitive) when the going gets tough.
ANT, the nemesis, is abundant; even worse, I believe the population of ANT players which are becoming experienced with the deck (building and learning to play the deck against blue, etc.) is larger than the population of Dredge players who are acquiring a similar degree of proficiency.
Reanimator, like ANT, is a difficult matchup (not as difficult as ANT, but still quite difficult). I consider Reanimator the stronger deck in this matchup--they have stronger disruption and a fast and flexible combo. Reanimator is also extremely easy to pilot, and with a low skill barrier to entry, we may see this deck more often. Renanimator is a serious GY-combo competitor for this deck (despite how different the decks really are), and we may see it cannibalize many dredge pilots as well.
While Dredge really can viably play through GY hate, it is still a serious obstacle. I expect GY-hate to increase in the format, and that means more barriers.




peace,
4eak

[umbowta]

How can you race Blazing Archon with Iona?

Well, it's clearly because Blazing Archon is like, Ray, and Iona is the newly chosen form of Gozer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6HWpqonRcY&NR=1)

[ktkenshinx]

Regarding this article, here is what I posted on the LEDless thread.

To all Ichorid players, I wish to turn your attention to an article pub"lished today on the starcitygames website. Ideas Unbound - Legacy Dredge by Max McCall is an interesting take on the archetype that discusses many issues that I have always viewed as problematic for this deck:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...cy_Dredge.html

The first problem that Max addresses is the maindeck. He advocates the exclusion of LED and of cool Dread Return targets (Iona, Hypnotist, FKZ, etc). He also moves towards a stable mana base courtesy of Tarnished Citadel. This last suggestion is particularly interesting. I have been using Citadel in my deck for months as a supplement to the standard City/Mine/Coliseum contingent. Many of you can likely relate to the problem of having JUST a Coliseum in hand and an uncastable discard outlet in the form of PImp or Tribe. Statistically, this happens with alarming frequency, just because most builds run only 12 lands. Max's runs a far more consistent 15. He also raises the important point that Coliseums aren't really lands. You want to use them as super Careful Study's within the first few turns, forever locking you out of Breakthroughs for X = 1, hardcasting of Grudge/Ray, circumventing Daze, and even Golgari Thug tricks. Now, Max admits that the Citadels can hurt, but hey. It's Dredge! The fastest (arguably) deck in the form should not be worried about a little damage, and this article confronts that head on.
The discussion of LED is similarly compelling. You just don't need it over a Tribe. Tribe provides consistency, Diamond provides sporadic explosiveness. Tribe feeds Return. Diamond opens you up to devastating graveyard removal if you can't get off the "combo" win. The balances clearly tip in favor of the Tribe.
And then there are the Dread Return targets. While I am in disagreement on Iona's value (she is an auto-win in various matchups), I must second Max's overall point. Dread Return targets tend to feel a bit cool. Maybe too cool, as in, Danger of Cool Things cool. Dredge operates on mathematical consistency, and the inclusion of 2-3 DR targets can severely impact this in some of your games. Quite frankly, they aren't needed. The deck is fine in its rawest incarnation (that which Max seems to present) without the cool additions.

The second problem that the article discusses is Bloodghast. His points are twofold. First, that Undiscovered Paradise makes the manabase unstable. It makes it difficult to consistently cast 2 mana spells, and can have problems in conjunction with Coliseum. It also forces you to include Dakmor Salvages, and anyone who tests this card will come to the same conclusion that I have: Dredge 2 is bad, and adding just B is even worse. Finally, Ghast lacks synergy with Bridge. While there have been many arguments that Ghast improves the control matchup and the lategame, overall it is not necessary. Dredge has a fine late game in its current incarnation, provided that an intelligent player is at its helm. Moreover, careful analysis of cards that screw with the Ichorid late game (Swords, hatred, Jitte's, etc.) will show that Ghast is equally susceptible to these perils.

The third point of interest in the article is the sideboard. Wispmare/Chewer vs. Ray/Grudge is a recurring concept in this thread. This article gives powerful reasons to use Grudge over Chewer. The most compelling of these arguments is, with a Grudge in your graveyard, you force your opponent to use their Relic or Crypt immediately, or they will lose it. If you have it in your hand, then all the better. If Chewer hits your graveyard, you can't use it immediately. You need to wait for a Dread Return and 3 sacrificable creatures in play. By that time, you are 2-3 turns behind with too many cards in your graveyard. Grudge is a small and onubtrusive card that definitively forces your opponent to pop their hatred. The only valid argument for including Chewer, as I see it, is circumventing Counterbalance/Crypt synergy and Chalice of the Void. These situations, however, are uncommon, and there are often better ways to deal with them than trying to blow up the artifacts.
The sideboard also includes a small toolbox of critical creatures. Ancestor's Chosen is important against Aggro and Tendrils. Angel slays threatening permanents. Terrastodon slays lots of threatening permanents. FKZ helps the mirror match, as well as any fast matchups. Overall, they are four elegant inclusions that give Dredge a lot of games 2 and 3 options, depending on its opponents.

In light of the article, I pose the following as critical points of interest to Dredge players. All of these arguments should be seriously (re)considered. Some people on this thread are almost religiously afraid to acknowledge the merits of these arguments, dismissing their supporters as stupid, lacking testing, or plain ignorant. In many cases, such counterarguments are backed up with comments like "it's been discussed before" and "it's just the way to do it." Some of these traditions should be re-evaluated, specifically the following:

1. No LED: Tribe is a better discard outlet, Dread Return food, a chump blocker, and helps consistency.
2. Tarnished Citadel/Extra mana: 3-4 extra lands drastically improve consistency and the control matchup (vs. Daze).
3. No Bloodghast/Undiscovered Paradise/Dakmor Salvage: The mana base suffers badly, and Ghast just is not that good.
4. No/Fewer Maindecked DR Targets: Too cool. The maindeck does not really need them.
5. Grudge > Chewer: Grudge is one card that forces your opponent to act. Chewer requires at least 4 others (DR and food).

-ktkenshinx-

[Happy Gilmore]

Well, it's clearly because Blazing Archon is like, Ray, and Iona is the newly chosen form of Gozer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6HWpqonRcY&NR=1)

Win

[Jaynel]

Study is the worst outlet and the worst draw spell.
However, Study is the best combination outlet/draw spell. It does a good enough job at both, which makes it play a really flexible role. Postboard, I want to be as flexible as possible in response to hate - I want to have as many options as I can, and I feel Careful Study benefits me more than Breakthrough in getting the gameplan of Dredging started AND digging for Grudge/Chain.


Ichorid isn't good in multiples until you are well into the midgame; feeding two Ichorids per turn on turns two and three is very difficult unless you have resolved a draw effect, in which case you don't need those Ichorids to win.
Ichorid is good in multiples in that you'll see more earlier. Getting Ichorid going early is gravy, especially if even a single Bridge from Below in involved. One Ichorid and one Bridge from Below can often be threatening enough to force players to blow their Crypt or Relic (and that's a trade I'm pretty willing to make). And against Merfolk, which I feel is one of our weaker matchups, grinding it out with Ichorids is the way to win the macth - you're going to want to have a few left after they Relic you the first time.


Crucially, the deck is configured such that the only non-DR non-flashback bullet you need to dig for is Chain. If Leyline et al became more popular, the fourth Study might become more important to find Chain, but right now, it's not.
Our boards differ slightly. I use Firestorm and you don't, so I can see how you may not find Study as useful.



Having Breakthrough in after boarding allows you to sequence Grudge or Therapy into an immediate Breakthrough. Usually when you are having to grind games out with Narcomoebas and Zombies against a Crypt, you're behind on the board, and need to use Breakthrough to explode before the other guy peels another piece of hate.
Like I said, the logic makes sense to me, and the difference between Breakthrough and Careful Study is 10-12 cards, but I think the flexibility that Careful Study offers makes it's inclusion postboard justified. That said, I will definitely try other board plans more similar to yours and see how things go.



I'm also confused why people hate playing less than four Leyline. Like, sure, you want them in your opening hand, but you also want, you know, all those other sideboard cards. Is the argument 'you need a fourth hate card for the mirror and Reanimator?' That might be valid, but what are you planning to cut? Is the argument instead 'a different sideboard card is superior because you can draw it on turn two and not be kold?'
I think you can cut the Angel of Despair - doesn't Chain of Vapor serve the same purpose? And though both arguments are valid, I think the second one holds more weight.

[BreathWeapon]

Because you can resolve your Iona before they can resolve their Archon in the LED version of the deck and name black instead of waiting for it to hit the board and then destroying it with Angel and alpha striking on the same turn.

Sorry, badly worded based on lack of sleep.

[Forbiddian]

Because you can resolve your Iona before they can resolve their Archon in the LED version of the deck and name black instead of waiting for it to hit the board and then destroying it with Angel and alpha striking on the same turn.

Sorry, badly worded based on lack of sleep.

The gameplan to try and race a combo deck without a backup plan is retarded.

Frogboy's plan wins even if you don't draw a nuts hand.

[MMogg]

So, I'd like some advice. Having read Frogboy's Dredge article and seeing that it doesn't play LEDs, I was curious what it would cost to build it online, and it still came out to over $100 (SB included... I think $150). Now, $100 is quite subjectively perceived: to some it may be a drop in the bucket, whereas for others it may be a sizable portion of their Magic budget. I'm kind of on the fence on this one (not to derail the thread a bit). It seems like this is maybe the best budget deck out there at the moment, so does anyone advise or advise against building this for MTGO? I mean, I have other things I could do with my Magic budget, like getting the new fetch lands or just building my paper collection with more staples. So I really don't know.

Pro: Cheap and no money cards. Most expensive cards cost $8 (Bridges and Leylines).

Con: So linear that although it's cheap, cards are basically only playable in this one deck.

Can anyone help me decide? LOL

[BreathWeapon]

The gameplan to try and race a combo deck without a backup plan is retarded.

Frogboy's plan wins even if you don't draw a nuts hand.

I agree, that's why if Reanimator relies on Archon to win vs LED Dredge it'll lose, because LED Dredge is the combo deck and Reanimator is the control deck and it will resolve Iona faster than they can resolve Archon. If you're going to choose a MD Dread Return target that addresses the metagame it's not Angel - obviously SBing it isn't out of the question, but there's a possibility a combo finish with Dread Return is better than a removal effect considering the window to win while Archon is down isn't long. In the context of LEDless Dredge, Frogboy is probably right - I'm arguing LED Dredge is superior to LEDless Dredge because it's not constrained by a lack of speed game 1 and forced to play reactively vs decks that can out pace it.

[frogboy]

4eak, ktkenshinx: Thanks!

Forbiddian: Only one Tendrils deck has made T16 in the last three 5ks. Belcher doesn't have Chants, and, while faster than Dredge, is vulnerable to cards like Ancient Grudge. Dredge is also pretty well equipped to beat an Empty the Warrens plan.

pi4meter: If you have a Grudge in your yard chilling out and doing nothing, yes. If your opponent draws Crypt after a Breakthrough turn they will probably be cracking it immediately, so you just want to make sure you don't get Trapped.

Happy Gilmore: No one plays particularly good lists, and I would argue that means they don't play as well, because their sideboards don't address the cards they are facing, and their maindecks are cluttered up with blanks.

BreathWeapon: A race to Iona favors the Entomb deck by a lot, especially given their bounce. Ray is loose against Leyline decks with Wasteland. LED improves your Storm matchup from "bad" to "loose" and hurts all of your other matchups. It's not like I ever lose any game ones because my deck wasn't fast enough; I lose them (rarely) because the top half of my deck was blank. I fight Crypts with Grudges more than with Ichorid pressure. I also recognize that you have Ghasts as well as Ichorids, so you don't have as many problems feeding it, but I think playing Ghast requires sacrificing too much.

Jaynel: I usually don't want to use Study to dig for Grudge; I want to dredge into Grudge and use Study to draw twelve cards post-Grudge. Your point about Firestorm is fair. I'm not sure how I feel about the Merfolk matchup and I'm not totally sure what line to take against them. Firestorm would probably be lights out, though. You can dredge into Angel, but not into Chain.

MMogg: I'm probably going to build it online.

[MattH]

It seems like this is maybe the best budget deck out there at the moment
Dredge is the ONLY budget deck. Even monoblue merfolk is now well past $300 (paper).

EDIT: I guess Belcher isn't that much. 2 Taiga, 4 LED, 4 Chrome Mox, but the rest is dirt cheap (BWish has now dropped to like $5-7).

[undone]

The problem I see with dredge right now is three fold

1) Anything dredge can do reanimater does better, faster, more consistentally and with more resiliance considering they are playing 8 1 mana tutors. You cant actually win this matchup I think because they need 2 mana to win the game and at most 3, you will not be able to wreck blazing archon because they will simply cast reanimate on your angel first.

2) Dredge STILL has a terrible ANT matchup which only gets worse with LED gone, and I Fully expect ANT to be the best or second best deck in the format. They are a turn 2 deck against you, (sometimes turn 3) on the play you might get a chance but otherwise you will just not have enough disruption to win the game, you need at LEAST 3 therapies to win this more than you lose it all of which hinges on not getting chant walked/discard outlet or draw spell discarded.

3) Your deck dies to tempo thresh and merfolk all day long because you arent fast enough and waste/stifle/daze/force. Considering that the DDD plan isn't actually fast enough as merfolk has curse catcher/ waste its own mutavault to screw that up, post board relics and crypts added to a fast clock and disruption make you a sad panda.

I simply don't believe that on a consistent basis you could have any hope of beating combo or decks that pack waste/stifle/daze/force + clock.

Simply put dredge with more mana and no LED has become the new doomsday tendrils. It looks really good and more consistent and theoretically it is awesome but in practice it is just too damn slow.

[Zappa]

Read, your article, I like it, and pretty much how I feel about hate. I feel that sometimes you just got to go in there, without fear or worry. Even if you suffer a crushing defeat on one of your matches, just suck it up and keep your spirits high lol.

[JACO]

I don't necessarily agree with all of Max's choices and reasoning, but overall I thought this was one of the best Legacy articles on SCG I've read in quite some time. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Meekrab]

Stephen Menendian's article about Dredge's woeful underperformance in Legacy is free now.
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/18512_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Lots_of_Legacy.html

Odd that the only spectacularly bad matchup seems to be Aggro-Loam, but NONE of the 12% of the field who played Dredge made top 8, despite it having decent to highly favorable matchups against everything else. Hard to say exactly why this is. Of course, half the Burn decks in attendance made top 16, so maybe the Midwest/St.Louis meta game just sucks?

[alderon666]

Stephen Menendian's article about Dredge's woeful underperformance in Legacy is free now.
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/18512_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Lots_of_Legacy.html

Odd that the only spectacularly bad matchup seems to be Aggro-Loam, but NONE of the 12% of the field who played Dredge made top 8, despite it having decent to highly favorable matchups against everything else. Hard to say exactly why this is. Of course, half the Burn decks in attendance made top 16, so maybe the Midwest/St.Louis meta game just sucks?

Leaning on this kind of analysis to say a deck is bad is so stupid. The sample size is SO small to take any conclusions. Some important variables are not accounted for, like: player skill level, different lists, mulligans to 2, triple crypt draws, bad matchups.

You can't take writer's attitude literally, we all know when dredge wins and it loses. But if you're going to play an all-in deck like Dredge, Belcher and even ANT you have to have that kind of attitude. I've had numerous games lost while playing with ANT because I was too afraid to go off unprotected against a blue mage with 3 cards in hand, and those cards happened to be Island, Island, Swords to Plowshares.

[FoolofaTook]

@frogboy

How can a deck where your entire game plan is public information and vulnerable to hate from the moment you begin playing possibly be the best deck in Legacy? I'm not trying to bust your chops at all. Give me a good explanation of how you can turn that situation to your advantage on a consistent basis and I might change my viewpoint on this.

I went looking on deckcheck.net and Ichorid really doesn't show well there at all. It wins smaller tourneys and Top 8's occasionally in the bigger venues, but basically it's one of Legacy's lost children - a deck that sees a fair amount of play but never comes home the winner when the metagame is large and diverse.

Assuming that Reanimator and Lands build on their current lightly played status and become powerhouses, and that Loam continues to make a splash in the larger events, how can Dredge not be harmed significantly by the splash damage of all the hate aimed at those decks? Is the hate that will be used against them less effective than the hate normally reserved for Dredge?

[Anusien]

How can a deck where your entire game plan is public information and vulnerable to hate from the moment you begin playing possibly be the best deck in Legacy? I'm not trying to bust your chops at all. Give me a good explanation of how you can turn that situation to your advantage on a consistent basis and I might change my viewpoint on this.
1) Because people underestimate Dredge's power. I know, because I've done it.
2) Because people don't test against Dredge and don't realize how many hate cards they need and how to use them.
3) Because it's one of the more powerful and non-interactive strategies in the format.
4) Because Dredge is so small a presence in the metagame that players can't afford to dedicate a lot of hate cards to it.

The hate cards that beat Reanimator, stuff like Extirpate, Coffin Purge, Tormod's Crypt, Relic of Progenitus, are less effective against Dredge. The good hate cards are Leyline of the Void, Yixlid Jailer, and to some extent Ravenous Trap. If you have the choice of which matchup to prepare for, Reanimator or Dredge, it's not gonna be Dredge.

I'm pretty sure, if you look, you can find examples of at least 3 of these 4 points in this very thread.

[Zappa]

I don't know, and quire frankly I don't let it bother me. If reanimator and lands are indeed becoming quite a presence... Even before their presence, we're already seen, faced, and prepared against the like of Crypt, Relic, and Leyline. It seems more like the other way around, those decks are facing grave hate due to dredge and decks packing Tarmogoyf. Granted that some decks may pack some other hates that affects dredge, but seems like nothing to the degree that the usual hates already pose. Edit: Plus A lot of the hates that can be seen can still be answered anyways with a traditional sideboard.

[FoolofaTook]

1) Because people underestimate Dredge's power. I know, because I've done it.
2) Because people don't test against Dredge and don't realize how many hate cards they need and how to use them.
3) Because it's one of the more powerful and non-interactive strategies in the format.
4) Because Dredge is so small a presence in the metagame that players can't afford to dedicate a lot of hate cards to it.

The hate cards that beat Reanimator, stuff like Extirpate, Coffin Purge, Tormod's Crypt, Relic of Progenitus, are less effective against Dredge. The good hate cards are Leyline of the Void, Yixlid Jailer, and to some extent Ravenous Trap. If you have the choice of which matchup to prepare for, Reanimator or Dredge, it's not gonna be Dredge.

I'm pretty sure, if you look, you can find examples of at least 3 of these 4 points in this very thread.

But how can it be the BEST deck in Legacy when it's not putting up consistently great results? It wins tourneys, even big ones now and then, however it's just one of the contenders, not the deck (as you point out) that people go way out of their way to prepare for. Given that people don't necessarily play the right hate in the right amounts Dredge should just dominate the metagame and force them too, assuming it was the best deck, right?

In your example above you say that people wouldn't prepare for Dredge over Reanimator. I totally agree with you on that one, although I really think people need to be thinking about both of them and Loam also at this point. Given that people are more likely to prepare for Reanimator, an emerging threat, as opposed to Dredge which has been around forever, doesn't that suggest that Dredge isn't as good as Reanimator?

[Ozymandias]

It's because magic players are egotistical as a bunch and because Dredge has a long-time reputation of folding to hate. People want to play "smart" decks like Counterbalance or something, so in general, the people who run Dredge are forced into it by budget reasons, borrowed-deck availabilities, and other externalities. That means that they don't know how to run Dredge correctly, and that means they lose a lot.

Reanimator plays Brainstorm, Daze, and FoW, which kicks it up to "respectable" territory, so people who want to magnify their perceived skill advantage will pick it up. Dredge has totally different set of playskills, so people don't see it as a deck that rewards skill.

[FoolofaTook]

It's because magic players are egotistical as a bunch and because Dredge has a long-time reputation of folding to hate. People want to play "smart" decks like Counterbalance or something, so in general, the people who run Dredge are forced into it by budget reasons, borrowed-deck availabilities, and other externalities. That means that they don't know how to run Dredge correctly, and that means they lose a lot.

Reanimator plays Brainstorm, Daze, and FoW, which kicks it up to "respectable" territory, so people who want to magnify their perceived skill advantage will pick it up. Dredge has totally different set of playskills, so people don't see it as a deck that rewards skill.

Doesn't your description of Dredge sound like an archetype that smart players would actually pick up and then dominate Legacy with? Where does the reputation for folding to graveyard hate come from - thin air? If Dredge is really that good it should be getting played by all the spikes out there who just want wins. It's a quarter the price of the alternatives out there even if you play the LED version. Dredge should be getting jumped on big time if it was actually that good.

[Ozymandias]

And the trend has to start somewhere. I submit that McCall's article on a frequently-read website may very well start a landslide of people picking the deck up. Gentlemen, start your leylines.

Alternatively, people might just not like playing a deck so different from "regular magic."

[frogboy]

Doesn't your description of Dredge sound like an archetype that smart players would actually pick up and then dominate Legacy with? Where does the reputation for folding to graveyard hate come from - thin air?

The reputation is from Extended circa 2007. They were wrong then, too; see the top eight of GP Vienna for details.


How can a deck where your entire game plan is public information and vulnerable to hate from the moment you begin playing possibly be the best deck in Legacy?

Because even though your opponent knows what your plan is there is very little he can do about it aside from play very specific hate cards that you can prepare for.


Assuming that Reanimator and Lands build on their current lightly played status and become powerhouses, and that Loam continues to make a splash in the larger events, how can Dredge not be harmed significantly by the splash damage of all the hate aimed at those decks? Is the hate that will be used against them less effective than the hate normally reserved for Dredge?

The best card against the Loam decks tends to be Tormod's Crypt. Leyline is less effective against a deck full of manlands and Grips. Leyline is fine against Reanimator, but is not so much better than Tormod's Crypt that Brainstorm/Ponder decks would run Leyline in lieu of Crypt.


But how can it be the BEST deck in Legacy when it's not putting up consistently great results?

People are playing bad lists and they are playing them badly. A friend of mine called me right before a tournament last weekend and asked if we could have Dredge waiting for him to play when he got off from work. He hadn't played it before. He crushed his Counterbalance opponent in game one despite making several mistakes, but literally didn't know what to do with sideboarding and just kept his maindeck for game two. He still very nearly beat two Tormod's Crypts if not for a miser's Pithing Needle on his Cephalid Coliseum. He then punted game three by casting Breakthrough for zero instead of for one. You can't really expect to pick up the deck and immediately crush a tournament. Some amount of preparation against hate is essential.

I kinda feel like relying on 'this deck isn't winning tournaments, it must be garbage' is sort of a loose metric when folks show up and make top eight with mono black control. Dredge interacts with the format in a fashion that is very favorable for Dredge, and it's very hard for other decks to alter their strategies to address that because Dredge is so hard to interact with outside of specifically targeting the graveyard.

[Meister_Kai]

People are playing bad lists and they are playing them badly. A friend of mine called me right before a tournament last weekend and asked if we could have Dredge waiting for him to play when he got off from work. He hadn't played it before. He crushed his Counterbalance opponent in game one despite making several mistakes, but literally didn't know what to do with sideboarding and just kept his maindeck for game two. He still very nearly beat two Tormod's Crypts if not for a miser's Pithing Needle on his Cephalid Coliseum. He then punted game three by casting Breakthrough for zero instead of for one. You can't really expect to pick up the deck and immediately crush a tournament. Some amount of preparation against hate is essential.

I very much agree with this, I placed somewhat well at the Indy SCG 5k even though I had no prior tournament experience or knowledge of what the most-played hate card against me even was (Faerie Macabre). At least two of the games I lost were because of bad mulling decisions and small mistakes that I have since reflected back on, trying to think through them in order to not repeat said mistakes.

I feel that this deck is "smarter" than most people give it credit for, as 4eak said it has very unintuitive lines of play when compared to the average Magic deck that make choosing the right decision for any given play alien until you have played the deck a good amount against good players. Its sort of like learning to play Magic all over again.

One thing you keep bringing up is "bad lists". What is an example of a "bad list"? Is any list with LED bad? What is your opinion of Parcher's list? I have to say that I would of basically just scooped to the combo deck I played against at the 5K (and the ones I played against in testing) if it weren't for LED and Unmask.

[Anusien]

But how can it be the BEST deck in Legacy when it's not putting up consistently great results? It wins tourneys, even big ones now and then, however it's just one of the contenders, not the deck (as you point out) that people go way out of their way to prepare for. Given that people don't necessarily play the right hate in the right amounts Dredge should just dominate the metagame and force them too, assuming it was the best deck, right?

In your example above you say that people wouldn't prepare for Dredge over Reanimator. I totally agree with you on that one, although I really think people need to be thinking about both of them and Loam also at this point. Given that people are more likely to prepare for Reanimator, an emerging threat, as opposed to Dredge which has been around forever, doesn't that suggest that Dredge isn't as good as Reanimator?
There can be a difference between the best deck and the best performing deck.

[Forbiddian]

The "it takes practice" excuse can only go so far. Obviously people are going to play suboptimal lists, and obviously people are going to suck, but take a look at this data:


Preliminary results:
Top 16 in St Louis, Top 16 in LA EDIT: And top 8, sorry I missed this, Top 16 in Dallas, nothing in Richmond, nothing in Indy, no top 8 in Madrid. Not so impressive for the best deck in the format. Since Ichorid didn't ever do well enough to intentionally draw, this makes the calculations pretty trivial. I have data for just LA, Dallas, and Richmond.

LA: 6 people showed up. Ichorid played 39 rounds netting 72 points, for 1.84 points per round, and one person made T16 EDIT: and 1 person made top 8, sorry (61% win ratio)
Dallas: 11 people showed up, playing 46 rounds and netting 62 points for a 1.34 ppr (45% win ratio).
Richmond: 11 people showed up, playing 52 rounds and netting 64 points for a 1.2 ppr (40% win ratio).


It's probably a slightly better deck than that, and maybe even played ideally with an ideal build it's actually a good deck. But the data show that in average hands, it's a below average deck. I don't see how a deck that performs like this could be hyped up as the best deck.

[xsockmonkeyx]

But you are a Sharks fan. You should instead be arguing that performing when it counts has nothing to do with one's actual value.

[Ozymandias]

The "it takes practice" excuse can only go so far. Obviously people are going to play suboptimal lists, and obviously people are going to suck, but take a look at this data:

Preliminary results:
Top 16 in LA,.

LA: 6 people showed up. Ichorid played 39 rounds netting 72 points, for 1.84 points per round, and one person made T16 (61% win ratio)


This data is just wrong. Looking at the SCG results for LA, Dredge placed in 12th and 6th place (Both LEDed versions, btw), which means it went from 4.2% of the field to 12.5% of the top 16 and 12.5% of the top 8. Compare to ANT, which went from 8.5% to 0 and 0, Goblins, which went from 7.7% to 6.25% and 0% or Aggro Loam, which went from 5.6% to 6.25 and 0.

Belcher, btw has the same stats for field percentage an t8/16 penetration as Dredge

[Forbiddian]

This data is just wrong. Looking at the SCG results for LA, Dredge placed in 12th and 6th place (Both LEDed versions, btw), which means it went from 4.2% of the field to 12.5% of the top 16 and 12.5% of the top 8. Compare to ANT, which went from 8.5% to 0 and 0, Goblins, which went from 7.7% to 6.25% and 0% or Aggro Loam, which went from 5.6% to 6.25 and 0.

Belcher, btw has the same stats for field percentage an t8/16 penetration as Dredge

That's right, sorry I must have missed that guy. I just glanced through the top 8/top 16 lists, sorry about that, I'll edit my above post.

At any rate, it's not very important, we're looking at the overall match win percentage, and Ichorid has won less than half of its matches in the three tournaments I have data for. Also, in case you're wondering, the top 8 was still included in the data analysis later, so the only thing wrong with the analysis was that I didn't mention that top 8.


I'm sure in better hands, it'd be better, like Frogboy probably would win tournaments, but "If you're not playing Dredge, you're doing it wrong." seems like it'd be more realistic as, "If you are playing Dredge, and your results were in Forbiddian's sample, then you were doing it wrong."

[Ozymandias]

But the overall match percentage win statistic is practically worthless because Dredge is so cheap to pick up. That divides the Dredge-playing population into two camps: the people who decided on Dredge over other options because it is a extremely good deck, and the budget players. One of those will probably have a far better match record than the other.

[xsockmonkeyx]

What's the overall match percentages with Merfolk, or other "budget" decks for those same tournaments? How does Dredge compare to other decks that are going to have their percentages divided by the two camps of players, budget and spike?

[FoolofaTook]

But the overall match percentage win statistic is practically worthless because Dredge is so cheap to pick up. That divides the Dredge-playing population into two camps: the people who decided on Dredge over other options because it is a extremely good deck, and the budget players. One of those will probably have a far better match record than the other.

This is true. On the other hand shouldn't some of the large field playing Dredge be lucking into a big win here and there, even assuming that the afficionados were few enough that they might be getting suppressed by sheer numbers? The largest Legacy tourney that Dredge has ever Top 8'd in was the 177 person thing in Jupiter in November. There are 11 tourneys larger than that, most of them recent, with no Dredge in the Top 8. Does that sound like the best deck in the format? You have to go down to the 22nd largest Legacy tourney to get another Top 8 appearance. Given the number of people playing the deck it just seems highly improbable that this is a great deck given it's results. Dredge, BTW, didn't win either of those tourneys, it just got into the Top 8.

[frogboy]

This is true. On the other hand shouldn't some of the large field playing Dredge be lucking into a big win here and there, even assuming that the afficionados were few enough that they might be getting suppressed by sheer numbers? The largest Legacy tourney that Dredge has ever Top 8'd in was the 177 person thing in Jupiter in November. There are 11 tourneys larger than that, most of them recent, with no Dredge in the Top 8. Does that sound like the best deck in the format? You have to go down to the 22nd largest Legacy tourney to get another Top 8 appearance. Given the number of people playing the deck it just seems highly improbable that this is a great deck given it's results. Dredge, BTW, didn't win either of those tourneys, it just got into the Top 8.

These same numbers suggest that playing Tendrils is a terrible idea. Saito and do Anh would beg to disagree with you. It is interesting to note that Tendrils is even more difficult to play than Dredge, but also has many pilots who scrub out of the 5k circuit. Hmm.

[Forbiddian]

But the overall match percentage win statistic is practically worthless because Dredge is so cheap to pick up. That divides the Dredge-playing population into two camps: the people who decided on Dredge over other options because it is a extremely good deck, and the budget players. One of those will probably have a far better match record than the other.

That's a good point, although with 28 plays, 2 top 16s and a top 8 isn't so impressive.


What's the overall match percentages with Merfolk, or other "budget" decks for those same tournaments? How does Dredge compare to other decks that are going to have their percentages divided by the two camps of players, budget and spike?

Sure thing:

LA Merfolk: 54% win ratio, 84 points in 52 matches, 8 players.
Dallas Merfolk: 62% win ratio, 149 points in 80 matches, 14 players.
Richmond Merfolk: 58% win ratio, 281 points in 162 matches, 26 players.

Overall: 514 points in 294 matches, 48 players and a 58% win ratio.


Belcher (although this probably doesn't scale with skill so much):
LA: 67%, 82 pts in 41 matches, 6 players
Dallas: 65%, 39 points in 20 matches, 3 players
Richmond: 55%, 90 points in 55 matches, 9 players

I can't really think of any other budget decks that are also competitive. Like obviously Ichorid beats Burn. Let me know if you think of any, I can run the analysis in like 5 seconds.



These same numbers suggest that playing Tendrils is a terrible idea. Saito and do Anh would beg to disagree with you. It is interesting to note that Tendrils is even more difficult to play than Dredge, but also has many pilots who scrub out of the 5k circuit. Hmm.

I'll analyze ANT, as well. It performed poorly (didn't even make a top 8) and just one top 16 in Dallas in the sample (so it got screwed by not having data for the other events), but still did almost exactly the same as Ichorid on average.

Richmond: 79/53, 50%
Dallas: 58/43, 45%
LA: 104/71, 49%

Overall 48% win percentage, same as Ichorid's. Note that my three tournament sample size includes the only tournament where Ichorid performed well (top 8 and top 16), and ducks a few where it wasn't seen anywhere near the top tables.

[xsockmonkeyx]

LA Merfolk: 54% win ratio, 84 points in 52 matches, 8 players.
Dallas Merfolk: 62% win ratio, 149 points in 80 matches, 14 players.
Richmond Merfolk: 58% win ratio, 281 points in 162 matches, 26 players.

Overall: 514 points in 294 matches, 48 players and a 58% win ratio.


Belcher (although this probably doesn't scale with skill so much):
LA: 67%, 82 pts in 41 matches, 6 players
Dallas: 65%, 39 points in 20 matches, 3 players
Richmond: 55%, 90 points in 55 matches, 9 players

I can't really think of any other budget decks that are also competitive. Like obviously Ichorid beats Burn. Let me know if you think of any, I can run the analysis in like 5 seconds.

Well, if we assume that Merfolk is harder to pilot than Belcher, Dredge is harder to pilot than Merfolk, and Dredge is harder to pilot than Belcher, then, for these 3 budget decks, the easier a deck is to pilot the better is will perform, and the harder the deck is to pilot the worse it will perform. Of course, with only 3 decks considered it's going to be hard to conclude anything definitive about this trend.

I guess Goblins, TES and Dragon Stompy would also qualify as budget competitive decks, depending on your definition of budget and competitive.

[morgan_coke]

Frogboy,

I think the main problem with your assessment of the decks viability is subjective bias. Look, I've won tourneys in Legacy with Slide. I'm great with the deck. With one or two exceptions I have a positive or better matchup almost across the board with it. BUT. Other people can't/haven't had any success or luck with the deck. That doesn't make my results invalid, or other peoples' playskill poor. It just means I happen to be exceptionally good with a particular deck that is uniquely suited to my playstyle and preferences, one that allows me to get dramatically better results than average from it because of the many branching decision trees and my familiarity with them and their potential outcomes.

The other problem I have with your analysis of the deck is very similar to what I often see from storm combo players. They simply assume they'll always have the right answer to your hate, and that just isn't true. Yes, you can dredge into a grudge to deal with their crypt/relic, but sometimes you'll lose extremely valuable cards in the process. Sometimes they'll draw two Crypts, sometimes you won't get the grudge and the therapy needed to stop a floating Ravenous Trap. Dredge is a very strong strategy, with a lot going for it, but it's also an extremely fragile deck, with many weaknesses that other decks lack.

All of this combines to make it a good deck, and a strong contender, but it is far from the best deck in the format. Claiming it is just demonstrates an inability to separate personal bias from raw data interpretations.

[AngryTroll]

Frogboy,

I think the main problem with your assessment of the decks viability is subjective bias. Look, I've won tourneys in Legacy with Slide. I'm great with the deck. With one or two exceptions I have a positive or better matchup almost across the board with it. BUT. Other people can't/haven't had any success or luck with the deck. That doesn't make my results invalid, or other peoples' playskill poor. It just means I happen to be exceptionally good with a particular deck that is uniquely suited to my playstyle and preferences, one that allows me to get dramatically better results than average from it because of the many branching decision trees and my familiarity with them and their potential outcomes.

...

All of this combines to make it a good deck, and a strong contender, but it is far from the best deck in the format. Claiming it is just demonstrates an inability to separate personal bias from raw data interpretations.

I disagree. If Max, playing Dredge, can beat the best Reanimator players playing Reanimator, and the best NOTresh players playing their deck, etc., that makes Dredge the best deck in the format. Same for you and Slide. If other people can't replicate that result, they may need to practice with the deck more.

Now, if Max can beat average players with whatever deck that they play, then it might be a playskill issue. But if he can beat pros with Dredge, then Dredge may be the best deck in the format.

[FoolofaTook]

These same numbers suggest that playing Tendrils is a terrible idea. Saito and do Anh would beg to disagree with you. It is interesting to note that Tendrils is even more difficult to play than Dredge, but also has many pilots who scrub out of the 5k circuit. Hmm.

Not 100% sure what you're saying here so I might be off with this. ANT has Top 8'd in 8 of the last 12 tourneys of 100 or more going back to September and it has won 2 of them. Dredge has Top 8'd in 2 of them and won none. That suggests to me that nothing about the recent large event results supports the notion that ANT and Ichorid are at similar or even close power levels.

[Bardo]

Got around to reading this article this mornig. I loved it. Really well done, Max. Good detail, planning for and beating hate, explanations of card choices and all.

[Forbiddian]

BTW, the Dredge list is fucking amazing, I'm not trying to take away from that.

[Amon Amarth]

I didn't bother reading this for a few days because I thought it was just another random Legacy article. I was wrong. Very good read and a very cool list. I haven't played my Dredge deck in awhile and this new list makes playing thru hate seem much easier. Very good read, and I really enjoy your writing style.

[Dredgehammer]

I read the article and found it surprisingly intruguing. Getting rid of my MD Iona, Sphinx of Lost Truths and FKZ brought a new kind of consistancy to my build.

I have always been surprised on how consistantly opponents humiliate themselves by cracking Crypts or Relics at the weirdest times. Perhaps they haven't had enough practise playing against dredge : during my half-year Legacy career in my local area I have not played a mirror match a single time.

[Artowis]

Not 100% sure what you're saying here so I might be off with this. ANT has Top 8'd in 8 of the last 12 tourneys of 100 or more going back to September and it has won 2 of them. Dredge has Top 8'd in 2 of them and won none. That suggests to me that nothing about the recent large event results supports the notion that ANT and Ichorid are at similar or even close power levels.

He's saying the majority of people are terrible and that if more skilled players picked up these types of decks you'd see a difference, hence when Saito plays combo and top 8's biggest GP ever (and really should've won) it shows that the decks are good and people generally just aren't good with them.