Printable View
DTB/DTW status changes on a regular basis as people put up results with decks and some decks move up and others down. It's purely result based with quantity of top 8's being a key factor.
There are a number of very good decks that would place well in more tourneys if they were played more often and would move up to the DTB forum as a result. They don't get played that often for whatever reason and thus they do not wind up in the DTB section.
Just a few notes I think you guys should know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
First. The deck Ernest played back in 2007 was my deck.
Second. The deck was unfinished. It was based off type 1/extended dredge and breakthroughs got added(plus or minus few other cards). I got to test it two weeks before Gencon with a few friends at the shop. The main deck is the only thing at the time that was being worked on. We threw a sideboard together 10 mins before the tourney. That was after Ernest decided he wanted to play something fun in the event, after losing his badge an running to go buy one and register for the event 20 mins before.
Third. Parcher, I got to hand it to you, the primer is great. Lets people know how and options to play with deck. I think you're wrong on the lotus petals, that's just my opinion. It's top 8'd in two 100+ people tournaments with lotus petals. But I do believe it should be a option for the deck, even if you don't like it.
Fourth. It's fine if you want to discredit a tourney with 180 people. I think you're right in doing so. Not all of those people are hardcore legacy players. Heck, my guess maybe only a hand full play legacy weekly. All those dumb people from the source(j/k), would never play in a tourney like. I'd safely say out of 180 people there were at least 50(or 22 if you use your 1/8 fact at gp) who knew how to play and play well. I'd take results of a 180 people tourney over a few 40 people tourney's any day of the week. Not to discredit your achievements or those of people around you, I would imagine your a very talented player. But to write off a 180 person tourney as a fluke or not part of the legacy meta is just dumb.
Also on a side note. I wouldn't listen to any bit of logic you have, if you can't figure out what to play in your own meta. Honestly, Test the list. It's solid. You'll probably flop on your face with the deck.. Then call Ernest lucky. So be it. But If you can luck your way into two top 8's with more then 100 people you have to be doing something right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattan
This is extremely specious logic. Using your own example, Chang won Champs in 2006 with U/G Madness, and Diceman won in 2007 with U/G Thresh. Yet no on ever won anything again with either of these decks. Basically ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMG021283
Now that doesn't mean that they weren't tried. Lots of people did sleeve them up, but found that due to either playing against skilled players, or themselves not being equal in skill to the previous pilots, they did not fare well. Actually, no. While the previous statements are true, the decks were at best, sub-optimal. Even last year's CounterSliver win did nothing to change the meta. The same small but devout group plays the deck, with little to few doing well with it(much like Ichorid). A deck definitely does not have to be well-built, or even correctly built to win Champs.
I've played in Champs, as have a great number of players I know. Multiple times. All will agree that it is populated almost entirely by dilettantes.
Then, bringing up tournament size is a pathetic argument. 90% of a Vintage tournaments have less than 60 people. Legacy tournaments get twice that, yet no one weighs these results more heavily in the Eternal community. Pro Tours rarely top 200 players, and yet the point and monetary reward is ten times that of a Grand Prix that has six times as many players. I think it's a much more difficult achievement to beat two 1900+, and three 1800+ Eternal players in a seven round tournament than it is to beat five 1600+ players in a nine round tournament.
Im sorry you dont like my list. But my 2009 list is very far for "horrible". The primer is very well written and it gives alot of insight on the decks options. If anyone is curious about why I like Lotus petal so much. Feel free to ask. I assure you that there are reasons behind it.
PS...Thanks for the back up Joe
Hm, now I'm curious why you would ask if somebody here is curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin_ZERO
I didnt ask if anyone was curious. Just stating that if they were, I would gladly answer their question/s.....douche lick
then...
...please tell me (us), what makes Lotus Petal so good...???
Everybody seems to play 11 Land and no one says its bad, or anything...
You play Petals and say its a good choice, but why exactly?
What makes 8 Lands +4 Petals better than 11 (12) Lands...
I see that Petal gives you an higher chance of firstturnkills, but game one, you should win anyway, and Petal looks much woorse than additional Lands postboard :(
YawG
With Lotus Petals you can do things on the first turn that you couldn't otherwise do. You can cast a Putrid Imp without walking into Daze. You can Breakthrough for one on the first turn making double Breakthrough hands ridiculous. Let's face it, multiple lands suck when you're going for it on the first turn, whether it's a Breakthrough or Lion's Eye Diamond play. Lotus Petal helps alleviate some of that. First turn kills are a huge part of what makes Ichorid a strong deck choice. It's also worth mentioning that there are more Wastelands out than maindeck artifact hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yawgmoth'sWill
On the other hand, Lotus Petals hurt your ability to win in the late game. Perhaps you cast Breakthrough off a Lotus Petal turn one and now six or seven turns later you'd really like to get a Firestorm back with Eternal Witness but you don't have the mana to play it. You wouldn't have this problem if the Lotus Petal was a City of Brass or Gemstone Mine. Ernest doesn't have this problem because he runs Cephalid Sage over Eternal Witness, although I believe Witness is the better card.
I don't think one set-up is significantly better than the other. I think this debate is being brushed under the rug instead of being allowed to run its course. Personally, I don't run Lotus Petal because I'd rather have a better late game, but I don't think it's obvious that running Lotus Petal is wrong.
If I'm missing something incredibly relevant and obvious, then please tell me.
First off, anyone who reads this site knows that I kiss no one's butt, but thank you to Kuma for keeping intelligible posts on this thread coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
But what I don't understand is how people can miss the obvious drawbacks to replacing lands with Petals. Suddenly Daze is game over if you don't get one of your seven lands. Chalice at zero? Wheee! 8 of my mana sources are shut off. Even oddball stuff like Trinisphere suddenly becomes relevant. Not to mention trying to accumulate additional mana to attack through a Prison or the like.
This is all in addition to the extremely common occourances when your opponent can just FOW, or Thoughtseize your only mana source. And that multiple mana uses from a source are almost a requirement post-board with Ichorid. I've actually added the 12th land to my sideboard, and been extraordinarily happy with it. God help you it you play Needle as well, and give your opponent even more reasons to bring in Artifact hate.
I have played a list with careful study and pedal. I find that pedal is extrodinary game 1 terrible game 2 and good again g3 on the play (I have 4 lands in the board along side chain of vapor needle and 3 meta slots)Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
I find that if you play pedal its insane game 1 because when it works its SUCH a blowout (its also alot more hot with studies in the deck as land or pedal into land or pedal can often lead to T1 dredging) it also makes land pedal breakthrough a ligit play because it enables daze protection even getting blown out by daze is no more blown out than keeping
imp sea/city of brass breakthrough dredger ichorid bridge dread return.
and casting imp getting it forced/dazed doesnt make that much differance its still a long time till you can win, when you were not soposed to cast anything in the first place and just DDD the first turn, and a force still blows you out.
Basicaly it makes out 80/20 pre board matchups more like 70/30 and terrible matchups ( enchantress and a few others) alot more manageable.
The only thing I didnt like about the gencon list was 0 careful study that card is awsome in the deck its so strong especialy on the play
Granted I only played a few games with it but opening with it + land feels like opening hands in vintage with 2 baazars. Opening with just it means you go to 8 discard and hope to get there with a draw spell.
Who gives a dumb f*ck about game 1? I win those 90% of the times.
Petal hurts you games 2 and 3 when you have to cast Pithing Needle and your only mana source is a Petal... nice huh.
I'm always tempted to play the Non-LED version just because they play more lands, making the sideboard much more relevant and consistenly castable. But the power of LED and turn 1 wins always drags me back.
Just because a deck wins doesn't mean it's the optimal list. Bad decks win games too. But only optimal lists manage to show good results over a longer period of time. Petal Ichorid had 2 results against 200 regular LED Ichorids. So that's really not an argument.
The main problem with Petal is that it only does something if you draw it together with a land. Petal but no land sucks big time. And even with a land it's not that ridiculous. It speeds the deck up by one turn in a fraction of the games and slows it down by multiple turns in another bigger fraction.
Hey, I'm very new to Ichorid itself and am still goldfishing/trying out lists on MWS. I have a decent grasp of how the deck generally works, but I am still having a little trouble determining which hands to keep, etc.
I got some of the basic dredge shell really cheap through trade, and my LED's are on the way. I do have a question, though. Has anyone considered Tolarian Winds in this deck? It's an incredibly cheap card and seems to fit in nicely. I searched the thread for it but no one has mentioned it in a post. Thanks.
Ok dick bag, I never said that 11 land is bad, or petal is a good choice. I said I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yawgmoth'sWill
I am all for having this debate, but Im not gonna put up with a bunch of whinny bitches saying that my win was a fluke or nothing but luck. And so far thats what im seeing alot of. And my list is "horrible" just because I run petal? Im sorry....but I like it.
Witness....10 to 1 will grab a breakthrough or an LED to flashback deep analysis. Either way it involves dreadging, so Id rather get a duke out of it if the whole point is to dredge. Thats just me though. Im not gonna say your list is horrible because of it. I just prefer a different route.
Careful study...I really want to play it. But it was the only viable slots available for the other stuff I felt that I needed.
More to come later.
It's not really good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbid-
Tolarian winds was only decent in the extended version.
Now, you often mulligan to 6 or 5, plus you need to put like 2 land in play and by the time you will be able to play it, it won't really do a full breakthrough, it will often only for 2-3 cards.
Plus, it's not versatile as breakthrough because you ALWAYS discard your whole hand. Also, two lands can be hard to get especially if you are running less then 12 and because wasteland is rempant.
It's often a not so good card and situational imo. Plus it's even more vunerable to Cursecatcher, daze, and spellsnare. I would not suggest running it. If you want to run another draw/discard outlet , definitly go for 2 or 3 of careful stufy
Okay, that makes sense :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guitar
And right now I'm between Careful Study & Unmask. I love the t1 Unmask + Therapy (although it is a rare hand to have), for reasons I don't have to mention.
Oh, and I've cut a single Ichorid for a "fun creature," so to speak. I know this is pretty common in decks, although advised against (GGT is pretty big I'll admist), where the choices can range anywhere from Inkwell Leviathan to Angel of Despair to Woodfall Primus, etc. The choice for my list is Furystoke Giant, which is in the SB for when cards like Elephant Grass /// Ghostly Prison are in play. I think its Persist ability is great when it comes to generating tokens, and if you don't have the mana /// Wispmare or something to deal with enchantments, this is pretty nice.
I've found that Study is necessary as a 2, maybe 3 of, because of the draw from the 'yard. There have been more times than not where I get the dredge engine going, and then am flipping cards just to find the Careful Study to be able to dredge off the last card draw. It is wonderful to use the UUU from a cracked LED, two of your 11(12) lands can often enough find their way into play, so you can buy it back that way, it isn't a card to cut. I won't argue against adding more hate to the deck with a certain amount of relevance, but in the end, this cannon needs to go BOOM asap, and Careful Study does that more often than not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbid-
You're welcome. :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
This is true. Turning Daze into a two for one is really bad. But unless you have a second discard outlet or draw spell in your hand you'll probably have your skull caved in by the blunt end of a Tarmogoyf before you draw another one anyway. At least running land over petal means you only need to hit the draw/discard instead of draw/discard and mana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Chalice at one is still the stronger play against Ichorid. This is a strike against Lotus Petal, but most decks running Chalice can, and prefer to, cast it for one on the first turn. And if you're going first, an opposing Chalice at zero loses almost all of its power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Resolved Trinisphere means we're not playing spells whether or not we're running land or Lotus Petal. Yeah, land is better here, but in 99.99% of games we're screwed either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Fair enough. Although the better play is to Wispmare/Ray of Revelation/Woodfall Primus the thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Why would your opponent ever Force of Will a Lotus Petal? Thoughtseize is a good point; I didn't think of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Why do we need more land post-board? Because we're more likely to be playing the long game? Seems reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
From talking with him, I know Ernest doesn't sideboard untill he sees a card that he needs to board for. He plays game two as balls-to-the-wall as he does game one, only sideboarding for hate game three if he has to. He plays the deck for pure speed, and his list is built to take advantage of that. While I don't agree with him on everything involving Ichorid, he's a better Ichorid player than I am, and I think he has an interesting way of playing the deck.
I don't run Needle, and I don't think most people do anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Dragon Stompy's strongest play is first turn Chalice at zero followed by Magus/Blood Moon. Geddon Stax's is Chalice followed by Prison. Ernest's version straight loses to either of these. Even post-boardQuote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
True, but I'd at least like the chance. DS is inconsistant. GS has no clock. Both give chances to build up mana, or slow dredge your way into a win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
I meant pre-boardQuote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
I would if I knew what version you were playing. It probably won't hapen often though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
See, this doesn't make much sense. I agree that Ernest is a good player. I agree that Ichorid should be a ball-to-the-walls deck, which is why I have spent so much time promoting the LED version. I don't believe that "playstyle" will ever be a valid argument, however. Nor will "because I like it" ever lead toward relevancy. A bad choice is a bad choice, and sub-optimal decisions are not validated through a modicum of success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
I mean I like hairless, pre-teen, Korean boys. I don't think that this is a valid choice for most though. And certainly wouldn't bang one and go one the forums encouraging others to do the same.
Ernest did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
So to me this more or less sounds like as if Ichorid doesn't need consistency, it needs power. Ichorid doesn't need answers postboard, it just needs better and more versatile threats. That’s why you basically dismiss the LED-less builds as well as Careful Study and Pithing Needle. For example while Pithing Needle is a solution to Crypt and Relic Gargadon is not as specific and not reactive but proactive. For you the case of for Unmask VS Careful Study is the same.
Careful study is versatile but simply lacks the power to fit into the deck while Unmask fits several roles and also takes the deck towards having a better game postboard. While on the first sight Careful Study seems to be the more versatile card because it can dig for answers, act as a discard outlet and speed up your dredges Unmask can actually do much more. It doesn't speed your clock up but it takes the opponent's best threat and thus gives us more time to dredge into something good while it also goes well with Breakthrough and helps us to force through our more broken cards.
I just think that Needle is very powerful as well. You drop it and their hate is useless. My basic concern about this reasoning is whether this strategy is the best or if a slower LED-less dredge deck is in general the way to go. Ichorid is definitely not a deck most people like to play against. And while many also say it's boring to play I actually enjoy it most of the time. However the decks first and foremost duty is to win matches. Not games but matches and as many of those as possible.
In order to win many matches the deck has to be consistant and while I've probably not played Ichorid in as many tournaments as you have I am quite familiar with the deck. Though I guess there are some more experienced people on this thread.
For me it boils down to one big question: Is the speed (=Power) worth the inconsistency of this deck / Do the advantages outweigh the risks? I actually think that Ichorid is near the best deck in Legacy as it got so many byes but I still feel uncomfortable that I lose quite some percentage of my games just to my deck giving me completely useless opening hands. How often do you experience in tournaments that you mulligan to oblivion? (I know quite well how to mull with Ichorid but I still fail horribly sometimes and seem to get several hands clogged up with several Narcomoebas, Ichorids and Bridge from Below in a row which leads to an instant win for my opponent.