[Deck] Dredge

I ended up cutting the 3rd imp for the 4th Ichorid. You are right, I miss the fire power. Since people can get away with 2 thugs, I don't see why I can't cut the pimps down to 2. Discard outlet wise, this deck has a ton since I have 4 led and 4 faithless now. I might suffer in g2 and g3 for not having a regular pitcher but I'll take that risk.

I've never seen anyone trim imps. Food wise, if you're plan is to dredge a ton quickly, eating extra thugs and stinkweeds should be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ivanpei

I ended up cutting the 3rd imp for the 4th Ichorid. You are right, I miss the fire power. Since people can get away with 2 thugs, I don't see why I can't cut the pimps down to 2. Discard outlet wise, this deck has a ton since I have 4 led and 4 faithless now. I might suffer in g2 and g3 for not having a regular pitcher but I'll take that risk.

I've never seen anyone trim imps. Food wise, if you're plan is to dredge a ton quickly, eating extra thugs and stinkweeds should be fine.

---

in game 1 i almost never use ichorid, or when i dredge a yton game one i always have at least 2 of them in the grave. I don't think the 4th icho is really needed game 1. Game 2 and 3 on the other hand i wouldn't want less than 4.
But i would never cut the pimps for it since pimp is an efficient beater, one of the best sollutions against 'grave sweepers', is cabal therapy/dread return food.
I think i'd cut breakthroughs. Often looting+led is enough to go nuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AEnesidem

in game 1 i almost never use ichorid, or when i dredge a yton game one i always have at least 2 of them in the grave. I don't think the 4th icho is really needed game 1. Game 2 and 3 on the other hand i wouldn't want less than 4.
But i would never cut the pimps for it since pimp is an efficient beater, one of the best sollutions against 'grave sweepers', is cabal therapy/dread return food.
I think i'd cut breakthroughs. Often looting+led is enough to go nuts

---

ivanpei's not running any Dread Returns, which is why it's more important for him to increase the threat density by running 4x Ichorid. I also agree that the build would probably benefit more from cutting Breakthroughs instead of PImps. You can always place a few Breakthroughs in the sideboard if necessary.

Cheers,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ivanpei

I ended up cutting the 3rd imp for the 4th Ichorid. You are right, I miss the fire power. Since people can get away with 2 thugs, I don't see why I can't cut the pimps down to 2. Discard outlet wise, this deck has a ton since I have 4 led and 4 faithless now. I might suffer in g2 and g3 for not having a regular pitcher but I'll take that risk.

I've never seen anyone trim imps. Food wise, if you're plan is to dredge a ton quickly, eating extra thugs and stinkweeds should be fine.

---

Keep in mind that, because you're not running Dread Returns, you'll have to rely on a more beat-down approach to winning. Cutting a few PImps not only decreases the number of discarders in your list, it also lowers the number of threats that can help with the beat-down. PImp has the distinction of being your only enabler that can also deal damage and help make Zombies (Tireless Tribe also used to be more popular, but Faithless Looting has taken over those slots).

Kind Regards,
jares

Hi All,

I know that this concern is a bit outdated, but can anyone tell me about how Unmask eventually got transitioned out of the list of cards being used for Dredge?

Kind Regards,
jares

I guess that happened, when we started DDD'ing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

Hi All,

I know that this concern is a bit outdated, but can anyone tell me about how Unmask eventually got transitioned out of the list of cards being used for Dredge?

Kind Regards,
jares

---

The combination of having the perfect hand with Unmask is tough. Ideally you want discard outlet+dredger+draw spell+one or two lands+Unmask+something to chunk to unmask.

Unmask itself doesn't always turn the tide either when having it in the perfect hand.

The card sucks further when you are on the draw which is half the games you would side it in.

For anyone that's interested, I'll be running Dredge tomorrow at the Grand Prix's "Win-a-Mox" side event later in the afternoon. I'll do up a report later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziilot

I guess that happened, when we started DDD'ing

---

Is the correlation because Unmask takes out 2 cards from your hand? I guess it does look like 2 timewalks for your opponent if you're planning on going the DDD route. During that time, though, I don't think that there were Dredge decks that were dedicated on using DDD heavily, unlike the Manaless and Hybrid lists that have had relative success fairly recently. Might there be anything else that bumped Unmask from the list?

Kind Regards,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joemauer

The combination of having the perfect hand with Unmask is tough. Ideally you want discard outlet+dredger+draw spell+one or two lands+Unmask+something to chunk to unmask.

Unmask itself doesn't always turn the tide either when having it in the perfect hand.

The card sucks further when you are on the draw which is half the games you would side it in.

---

These points make sense. Point number 2, though, seems like it's relatively arguable, as I've personally had a few games where a timely Blind Therapy on turn 1 was all it took to turn the tide - so an Unmask will surely help with the "Blind" part.

Basically, it seems that Unmask was just transitioned out because better options were discovered for the archetype. Thanks for the input. I'd be interested to know if there's anything else.

Cheers,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hollywood

For anyone that's interested, I'll be running Dredge tomorrow at the Grand Prix's "Win-a-Mox" side event later in the afternoon. I'll do up a report later.

---

Which list will you be running? I'd be interested in your report as soon as it's ready.

Cheers,
jares

The only real reason Unmask is so bad in Legacy(while really good in Vintage) is that the only card you want to pitch it it is the card itself. You never wanna pitch any of the other black cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HokusSchmokus

The only real reason Unmask is so bad in Legacy(while really good in Vintage) is that the only card you want to pitch it it is the card itself. You never wanna pitch any of the other black cards.

---

Not to mention that Ichorid is also competing for some of those black cards. I was browsing the first few pages of this thread, though, and found that Unmask was played very often during that time. Was this because the meta very combo-oriented back then?

Kind Regards,
jares

I played this list at my local event last night. There was 12 people.

4 Bloodghast
4 Narcomoeba
4 Putrid Imp
3 Tireless Tribe
2 Ichorid
1 Woodfall Primus
10 Dredgers

4 Careful Study
4 Cabal Therapy
4 Bridge from Below
2 Breakthrough
2 Dread Return

3 Undiscoverd Paradise
3 Gemstone Mine
4 City of Brass
2 Darkmor Salvage
4 Cephalid Coliseum

Sideboard
4 Firestorm
4 Leyline of the Void
4 Nature's Claim
2 Ichorid
1 Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite

Matches in round order
Blue Red Delver
RUG Tempo
What i beleave to be the worst matchup for non L.E.D. Dredge. Reanimater
Sneaky Show

Highlight of the night was against B/R Delver. Game 3 i managed to win from Surgical on Bridge,Surgical on Narcomoeba and Surgical on Blood Ghast. After 3 Surgicals, 2 fetchs and Theraping his Bolts i win from Dredging and Ichorids. My friends were like you won that? I said yea im prepaird for that shit. That shit being Surgical Extraction.
Unfortunately the rest of my night sucked, Losing the rest of my matchs :(
Having the extra threats worked out way better than Coffin Purge in response to Surgical.
In conclusion if your having problems against Surgical/Snapcaster Surgical like i was try playing more threats insted of Coffin purge in response to Surgical. It works :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

I absolutely agree with you. I believe that Deck Optimization should be based on Sound Reasoning and Rigorous Testing, as well as an understanding of the math the governs a deck's tendencies (I find Hypergeometric Probability to be very helpful). To clarify, the point about "winning" was mentioned because of the following train of thought:

• Putrid Imp was stated to be "trash" (kindly see some of the previous comments).
• Phantasmagorian was stated to be "better" than Putrid Imp.
• To help progress the discussion, a head-to-head comparison of the two cards was provided, considering all the points that have been noted at that point.
• It was stated that all of the successful Dredge decks after the banning of Mental Misstep used Putrid Imp, and none of those decks used Phantasmagorian.
• I suggested that, because none of the arguments are conclusive, it would be hasty to say at this point that "Putrid Imp is trash" and "Phantasmagorian is better".
• Because none of the points presented seem to have been conclusive for either side of the argument, I conceded that, at the end of the day, we are all entitled to voice-out our opinion and discuss our arguments. The only unquestionable way to prove our arguments, though, is to WIN - amidst all the excuses one can think of to brush-off its importance (may it be luck, circumstance, personal philosophy, etc.), WINNING will show that our efforts to improve were wisely considered, and it is the reason for why we are all Optimizing our decks. If others would prefer Theory-Crafting and Philosophizing over Winning, then I'll respect that too.

I understand that all this is done in an effort to improve the Dredge Archetype, and I'm all for that. This is exactly why I keep suggesting that we should base our statements on SOUND ARGUMENTS and SOLID RESULTS (including testing), because baseless statements would only impede the progress of a discussion. I personally would like to explore the "Phantasmagorian Route" more, which is why I keep revisiting this idea. Unfortunately, it has been difficult for Final Fortune to keep an open mind and become as unbiased as possible, and this keeps him from understanding that I would like to help with his argument by refining the reasoning behind it - I'm not saying that the results will be favorable for Phantasmagorian after the refinement, but I'm sure that it'll be much more defensible.

Unfortunately, this is what we all have to go through as part of a forum/community. As my friend once told me regarding these forums, "you'll have to sift through the stones to find the gems". I'm trying my best to sift-out as many "stones" as possible.

Again, I appreciate that he's trying to think outside the box, and I'm all for that. We have to make sure, though, that we don't "throw stones into the box" while we're outside of it. I personally have been criticized for my opinion regarding certain topics (e.g. not playing DR in the main deck), and I've taken these critics seriously, even if these comments were not constructively stated. At the end of the day, though, I took the results of my testing/brainstorming, considered all the criticism thrown my way, and went on to see if I could prove one or the other by competing - and, again, WINNING showed that my considerations were headed towards the right direction.

Moving forward, I expect to continue improving on what I've learned so far. Things will certainly change, as we will always have room for improvement. What matters, though, is that we base our improvements on sound arguments and solid results.

Kind Regards,
jares

---

I've provided more than enough arguments for Phantasmagorian and against Putrid Imp, the problem is that people's counter arguments for Putrid Imp and against Phantasmagorian are baised. When they fail to consider Putrid Imp's dependency on being drawn, cast and resolved and take for granted the deck's vulnerability to Wasteland and its consequences on your fundamental turn just to compare the effects of controllable vs. uncontrollable discard in a metagame where Tormod's Crypt has become a rarity instead of a mainstay in SBs, then you're only analyzing Putrid Imp under its best case scenarios instead of under its worst case scenarios like being Force of Willed, having your land Wastelanded or not drawing it at all and decreasing your business in the graveyard, your % to chain dredge and your abillity to mulligan.

Phantasmagorian is a superior mechanic compared to Putrid Imp, being an uncounterable outlet that doesn't expose your manabase to disruption and is neither draw nor mana dependent is unarguably better than a mechanic who forces you to unnecessarily interact and expose yourself to disruption The argument you need to make isn't whether or not Putrid Imp is better than Phantasmagorian, but whether or not the presence of Tormod's Crypt, always being on the draw game 1 and being forced to play game 2 offsets the advantages Phantasmagorian has over Putrid Imp

Because if you compare the two cards head to head game 1 vs Tempo Threshold etc. Phantasmagorian will always come out ahead i.e. it's "better" than Putrid Imp. After that, see the difference in how having a countered Putrid Imp on the play feels compared to having a Phantasmagorian in your graveyard while you're starring down the barrel of a Delver of Secrets or how having your first land Wastelanded compared to holding that Undiscovered Paradise and Careful Study back, and finally how never drawing either one of them feels. I guarantee you having a flying Carnophage is never going to make any where near as much of a difference in a deck that explodes with creatures anyway compared to actually exploding unmolested

This is why I get so damn frustrated and rude with half of the people posting in this thread, none of you are actually testing Phantasmagorian seriously compared to Putrid Imp in a controlled environment focusing on your worst case scenarios game 1 vs RUG Tempo etc. to actually see what's better, or you would be agreeing with me instead of arguing banalities. You can keep posting that "argument for/against Putrid Imp" list all you want, it doesn't actually say anything. Start doing the math on how often Putrid Imp can be drawn and cast, how often it causes -2 turns of tempo to your fundamental turn vs disruption offset by a critical mass of draw spells or lands to recover from said disruption and I'll actually bother looking at it.

As far as other points,

1) It's good to see that most of you have come around to 8xCareful Study, but I don't think you have to cut Breakthrough if you're willing to sacrifice SB space because you can SB 1 Golgari Thug, 1 Ichorid, 1 Dread Return, 1 Golden Land etc. and concentrate on game 1 with the full "broken package" of Breakthrough, Cepahlid Coliseum, Lion's Eye Diamond, Faithless looting and Careful Study and then just SB into redundancy.

2) I still think the deck is too fast for SB Firestorm to matter, unless Maverick stalls into Scavenging Ooze with Faerie Macabre on your Dredger then you're just going to outrace his 1GG disruption. I like the card tho' if you can't play with LED for whatever reason because it does a pretty equivalent job of sending aggro decks straight to hell while having a little more post-board utility.

3) I've pretty much come around to agreeing that you don't need Dread Return or Dread Return targets main, they're useful for differentiating your attack angles vs Surgical Extraction and they make a good 1x just to "round your bases" and 5x your sacrifice outlets for Narcomoeba but I usually end game one with "Power Overwhelming" regardless.

4) Don't worry so much about having to cut lands for LED, because LED is a mana sources for like 8 cards in the deck by itself game 1, 4 of which you don't even have to draw.

5) That Coffin Purge shit has always been awful, it's not even that great vs Reanimator because they'll just counter it and be like "WTF ever" while they Reanimate a Blazing Archon and it's a pipe dream vs Surgical Extraction. You pretty much want Faerie Macabre vs. Reanimator if you try to do anything to save that mach up, personally I just think we're pretty fucked by them and the only match up we have a prayer in heaven for is Storm if the coin flip gods are with us.

Phantasmagoria is much worse at fighting Relic of Progenitus and Tormod's Crypt.

Again, Final Fortune, it tires you, and it tires others to go through this same ranting of yours over and over again. The bottom line of all this is that you should prove your point already - just try to prove your point for once, and try not to wander-off in your rantings. Go win a tournament and provide a report, list down your test results, or maybe even start doing the math, just like you suggested. For reference, try observing how Hollywood presents his points; you might learn a thing or two from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

I've provided more than enough arguments for Phantasmagorian and against Putrid Imp, the problem is that people's counter arguments for Putrid Imp and against Phantasmagorian are baised.

---

That's exactly the point that you can't seem to understand! The arguments you've presented aren't conclusive, which is why you're having such a hard time with them! So instead of whining because you're unable to prove your point, I suggest that you man-up and prove us all wrong! For all we know, you might just be the genius that we're waiting for in our generation! Whichever the case, you simply have to PROVE YOUR POINT by presenting SOUND ARGUMENTS and SOLID RESULTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

...the problem is that people's counter arguments for Putrid Imp and against Phantasmagorian are baised.

---

And, again, instead of actually proving your point, you prefer to make EXCUSES like the one above. Try reading your own comments - you'll find that you're packing the most bias in your arguments by saying that "Phantasmagorian is a superior mechanic over Putrid Imp". In comparison, all that I have been trying to get you to understand is that "it's too early to make that claim", and that you're not providing strong enough arguments to prove your point - you've even failed to notice that I'm actually rooting for Phantasmagorian to get over that hump!

Let me say it again: there's every possibility that you're right in everything that you're saying - you just have to STOP MAKING EXCUSES and PROVE YOUR POINT by providing SOUND ARGUMENTS and SOLID RESULTS. I'm sorry that the burden of proof is on you because you're trying to break the norm, but that's the way it is, and you have to take that like a man instead of giving in to your frustration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

you're only analyzing Putrid Imp under its best case scenarios instead of under its worst case scenarios

---

Kindly read the head-to-head comparison closely. ALL your arguments are there, and have been seriously considered. Try reading your own comments again, and you'll find that it's YOU that's always focused on the best-case scenarios for Phantasmagorian, ignoring or brushing-off all it's other weaknesses whenever these are mentioned. You will never achieve what you have been trying to gain if you fail to criticize your own arguments. Let me throw that statement back at you: you're only analyzing Phantasmagorian under its best case scenarios instead of under its worst case scenarios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

This is why I get so damn frustrated and rude with half of the people posting in this thread, none of you are actually testing Phantasmagorian seriously

---

This is where you keep falling short, Final Fortune. Do you really just want to keep masturbating yourself by thinking that you're the only one with the correct answer? I don't know you personally, but I'm pretty sure that you're a smart guy, but keep in mind that our efforts to improve our intellect is likely wasted unless we understand this: "Wisest is he who knows he does not know". You're not the only one with the answers, and you're certainly not the only one testing Phantasmagorian seriously. Again, STOP MAKING EXCUSES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

You can keep posting that "argument for/against Putrid Imp" list all you want, it doesn't actually say anything.

---

It's hilarious that you should say that, because I specifically put your arguments there too :laugh:. You see, even in this statement of yours you prefer to make excuses by saying that "it doesn't say anything" instead of considering/evaluating the validity of the arguments presented.

I would like you to know that I've learned a lot from your arguments, which is why I placed in there on the list, for everyone's reference. You're wasting your own arguments by not backing them up properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

Start doing the math on how often Putrid Imp can be drawn and cast, how often it causes -2 turns of tempo to your fundamental turn vs disruption offset by a critical mass of draw spells or lands to recover from said disruption and I'll actually bother looking at it.

---

Why don't you do the math yourself, since you're advocating the superiority of Phantasmagorian anyway? This might, in fact, be your chance to prove yourself! Again, the burden of proof is on you for this one, as you're the one trying to go against the norm (I'll have enough of a burden trying to test a LEDless list without DR anywhere in the 75-card list, and I'm looking forward to that).

I believe that I've already exhausted everything I have to say in a previous comment, not to mention that I also reiterated myself in this latest one. So to save myself the trouble, I'll just re-post that comment and wait for you to respond to it (kindly see the next comment).

Good Luck,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

1) I'm obviously not advocating Phantasmagorian, Lion's Eye Diamond, Firestorm and Tireless Tribe all in the same deck, I'm saying that if you're playing Cephalid Coliseum then you should be playing X cards that enable your Cephalid Coliseum on the following turn and that don't require you to use your draw spells to do it. If you're playing turn 1 land, Careful Study into turn 2 Cephalid Coliseum then you're exposing yourself to counter magic unnecessarily compared to DDD, Turn 2 Study (counter) Turn 3 Cephalid Coliseum where you still reach your fundamental turn thru' disruption. If you're playing Cephalid Coliseum and you're not playing Lion's Eye Diamond over Breakthrough then you're probably doing it wrong, because LED powers Coliseum a turn earlier and can be used to bait counters and resolve another threat on the same turn while Breakthrough has always had disynergy with Coliseum.

I personally wouldn't play with Coliseum because it doesn't agree with my philosophy of DDD, land, draw spell but if I did I'd be certain I could consistently cast the card without sacrificing a business spell to do it.

2) I think Chain of Vapor vs Nature's Claim is going to be SB dependent, I see more Surgical Extraction in Snapcaster decks, Faerie Macabre in aggro decks and Leyline of the Void/Grafdigger's Cage than I see Tormod's Crypt, Nihil Spellbomb and Relic of Progenitus not to mention Chain of Vapor is always useful in the event they don't draw hate. If the latter hate cards became more prevalent, I'd either reconsider my position on Putrid Imp and/or SB Ancient Grudge.

3) As far as Phantasmagorian/DDDing is concerned, it's about as fast if not slightly slower, right now I'm playing 4xLion's Eye Diamond, 4xBreakthrough, 4xFaithless Looting and 4xCareful Study game 1, with Lion's Eye Diamond replacing the Dread Return targets, and I usually have an over whelming board presence by turn 3. If I weren't playing Lion's Eye Diamond MD, I'd probably be playing Firestorm instead so I think it's a moot point what 4 GSZ and 1 Scavanging Ooze can do to the deck. There are so many more scarrier cards than Scavanging Ooze that you need the board space to deal with, and considering Maverick doesn't play counter spells your graveyard is going to be too far along for Savanging Ooze to matter very often.

4) I have no doubt Putrid Imp can win game 1's, as well as Putrid Imp being useful facing Tormod's Crypt in the same way I'm certain that Phantasmagorian is always better than Putrid Imp game 1 and only marginal less useful game 2 vs specific hate. It's great that Dredge is placing, but the power curve of the deck and the unpreparedness of the metagame will carry the pilot despite sub-optimal card choices. Considering no one is playing Phantasmagorian as far as I can tell, it's only logical Putrid Imp is going to be in the Dredge deck that places instead of Phantasmagorian because it has no representation. As far as I'm concerned Manaless Dredge and 4eak's hybrid list have already proven the viability of the strategy as a whole.

Game 1 is so incredibly important for Dredge that you can't afford to lose it at any costs, and playing first and blindly casting Putrid Imp is an unnecessary risk that will, at some point, put you in the losers bracket. I don't see any reason to take that chance, especially when Phantasmagorian Dredge is still plenty good on the play if they get cute and decide to draw. It's so easy for people to justify their decisions based on winning and only analyze their losses for fault, this lazyness just describes every Dredge player I've talked to and holds back optimization. Just pointing out what Putrid Imp obviously does on some simplified diagram that doesn't actually take into account what Phantasmagorian really does, which is incredibly difficult to describe or calculate, and treating tournament results as the holy grail isn't an "actual argument" either. Steven Menendian was trying to pass that bull shit logic out to explain why nobody should play Dredge in the first place, and here we are.

---

Final Fortune,

Again, rather than make SOUND ARGUMENTS and provide SOLID RESULTS, you instead choose to make EXCUSES for your inability to prove your points and for perennially being proven wrong by what actually happens in the events that we want to conquer - tournaments (or competition, in general).

WINNING is what proves that your theory-crafting, philosophizing, and testing was wisely exercised, and as much as you are correct that we should not use winning as an excuse to put-off optimization, you should also refrain from using other people's so-called "laziness" to justify not being able to prove your point. To provide a counterexample to disprove your excuses, I would like to note that I personally have focused more on optimization specifically because I've been winning, and have even gone to great lengths to understand the math that governs the composition of the Dredge Archetype in general - and because of this, I discovered that I still have much to learn.

I'm sure that you're tired of explaining yourself over and over again, and I can assure you that many of us are also tired of going through your BASELESS STATEMENTS, so maybe we can at least come to agree on the following points:

• Everyone is entitled to their own OPINION, and we should RESPECT the ideas of others at all times.
• Our opinions become VALID ARGUMENTS whenever we provide SOUND REASONING, MATHEMATICAL BASIS, and SOLID RESULTS to support our ideas. At the end of the day, there are no right or wrong arguments, only foolish or defensible ones.
• It is everyone's right to have a different opinion, but what really matters is that we refrain from being DISAGREEABLE whenever we disagree.

As a conclusion, I would simply like to say that I agree to disagree with you. I hope that you would also do the same.

For those that agree with what has been stated here, kindly sound-off.

Sincerely,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt

joemauer,

I mostly see "hasty generalizations" here, such as "their articles are crap", which is the very thing I'm looking to avoid.. I just want accurate/unbiased info, which is impossible, but I'm trying my hardest to find it. For the record, both Prosak and Feldman have placed in prestigious competitions while piloting dredge. That alone gives me faith in their articles, compared to a forum where anyone and their mom can post.. That being said, there's a few people here that attempt to make sense, and I also appreciate/value their feedback.

-Matthew

---

I'm not sure where Feldman placed, but Prosak did not place in a "prestigious competition." He placed in a SCG where the hate was non-existent and the pros were away at PT Dark Ascension. I watched his play, and both his and his opponents play were very loose.

This is not a bash on Prosak, he is a competent player who has had a good amount of success. That being said, He is not a dredge player. He picked the deck as a meta game choice (It even says so in his article I believe). The people on here, however, play a good amount of dredge (nearly exclusively for me). Therefore, we have a lot more insight on the workings of the deck.

So, I guess what I'm saying is to listen to the previous comments. If you want info on dredge, this is the place to find it. Not SCG.

It is impressive to simultaneously hold the beliefs of "Ignore the results, listen to the experts" and "Your theory does't mean anything until it is proven with results". That is Alar like a blade of Ramston steel.