This hardly reflects the current meta. If combo and 43 lands are such a presence why play this over LED Ichorid?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimirynk
Printable View
This hardly reflects the current meta. If combo and 43 lands are such a presence why play this over LED Ichorid?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimirynk
Even if combo,mirror,43.dec, any thing with leyline as its only hate, prison decks all combine only make up 25% of the meta your still probably going to play against at least 1-2 a torn if not why are you all winning ever torn?Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine
I always test both LED and LEDless Ichorid, the cons of led ichorid alway tilted LEDless as the deck I play at big torns.
Right now its a close choice do to the fact of combo,mirror,43.dec, any thing with leyline as its only hate, prison decks combine usually match the number of MERFOLK at torns which was a big factor of why I play LEDless.
But right now ravenous trap really hurts the all in approach and you don't know what decks are playing it. So I will continue playing LEDless.
@ Everyone.
Its more important then ever to win game one to to the fact that you weaken your deck ever game2 siding in hate and now you have no clue what they're bringing in..
So be prepared to be going 2-1 a lot.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimirynk
Your arguments are contradictory, playing Breakthrough is an all in approach. You can side them out for games two and three, but they're often not necessary to win the first game anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimirynk
Breakthrough helps your worst MU's.
If your not playing vs. them why are you not winning even torn you enter?
You don't side out in your worst MU's.
That should push them to 4x in your lists.
You say this under the assumption that only the deck's bad match-ups are the only deck that can beat it? So False. There is a reason why they're only called "good" match-ups, they're only good and not perfect (meaning you hardly ever lose); while "bad" matchups are insanely difficult but not impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimirynk
You're saying we should prepare for the 25% we have difficulty in beating because we might face them despite the fact that they have difficulty playing against the other 75% of the meta which we are good at? If they come in big numbers and you happen to play against them, it was just your bad day. I rarely ever side-out all breakthroughs though. I only do so against anything blue, freeing up 5 slots for me. Otherwise, I cut 1ofs of a few cards to free up 4 slots, very similar to the sb strategy shown in the opening post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimirynk
Like, part of the reason you crush 75% of the format is because when you cast Breakthrough and dredge thirty cards they lose the game.
Not exactly, we crush 75% of the format (in the first game at least) because they have no way to effectively interact with out strategy. I would bet that we could still roll at least 50% of the format in the first game by just going DDD all day. Resolving Breakthrough game one generally speeds up our strategy enough that the opponent can't even race, but the same is true for Careful Study and Coliseum activations. My point is that Breakthrough doesn't make you win - it makes you win faster. This might be relevant if the field is 25% your worst MUs (in which case why are you playing dredge?) but in general I'm content to rely on my inevitability in the first game and devote those spots to improving my percentages for games two and three.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogboy
Here is the list I am running atm. I really like it as it is very versatile. You no longer have to bring in specific hate cards and can bring in much broader answers.
Maindeck
4 city of brass
4 gemstone mine
3 cephalid coliseum
2 undiscovered paradise
4 golgari grave troll
4 stinkweed imp
3 golgari thug
4 bridge from below
4 ichorid
4 narcomoeba
2 dread returns
2 sadistic hypnotist
4 careful study
3 breakthrough
1 brainstorm
4 tireless tribe
4 putrid imp
4 cabal therapy
Sideboard
4 spell pierce
2 force of will
3 chain of vapor
1 ancient grudge
1 ray of revelation
1 ancestor's chosen
1 thoughtseize
2 pithing needle
Any comments and suggestions are welcome, but at this point I am quite happy with the deck. You have to remember game one is a virtual bye for us and with this board you will have the best possible answers available game 3. The only cards in the sb I'm not crazy about are pithing needle, but at the last event I played in I really wished I had them. Thoughtseize is also a bit awkward as a one of, but I had an extra slot and I didn't want to run 3 fow's or any unmasks so it seemed to fit quite well.
I'm running a slightly modified version 4eak's deck from (#782)
//Mana
4 City of Brass
4 Gemstone Mine
4 Cephalid Coliseum
//Dredgers
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
4 Stinkweed Imp
3 Golgari Thug
1 Darkblast
//GY-Goodies
4 Ichorid
4 Narcomoeba
4 Cabal Therapy
4 Bridge from Below
3 Dread Return
1 Flame-Kin Zealot
1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
1 Woodfall Primus
//Draw &/or Discard
4 Putrid Imp
4 Breakthrough
4 Careful Study
2 Tireless Tribe
// Sideboard
SB: 4 Chain of Vapor
SB: 3 Ancient Grudge
SB: 3 Firestorm
SB: 2 Ray of Revelation
SB: 2 Darkblast
SB: 1 Ancestor's Chosen
AS you can see, no Undiscovered Paradise., I just didn't feel it was truly necessary. Gemstone Mine and City of Brass are doing a fine job keeping me provided with the mana I need. It worked so far and still works now.
Moving on to the dredgers, I did some cuts there too. One less thug, one less Darkblast. So i'm at 12 now, a number I've always been playing with and it worked quite well so far.
A couple more changes in the Graveyard section:
I added one more Dread Return, since 2 is not enough for my tastes, especially since I moved targets like Iona, Flame-kin and Woodfall Primus. I added the first and the last for versatility. Maybe it's a little overkill to have both, but I thinks it's better to be safe than sorry later. And Flame-kin? In my opinion he should always been in the main.
The last change in the main board would be the 2 instead of 4 Tireless Tribes. Can't say much about that.
As far as the sideboard goes, only two things:
More Darkblasts if there's a nasty 1/1 to be expected, and Firestorm if there's something bigger around in the early phase.
Why did people around here stopped running the classic 15 lands? Is 13 or 12 really enough?
Don't know, I've always played with 12. First time I saw more than 12 lands in the list was when Bloodghast/Dakmor/Paradise became popular.
read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciberon
I guess people aren't worried about beating decks with counters and Wasteland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciberon
O geez, +1 sir.:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anusien
@Ciberon
The deck as a whole (LED/LEDless) vary on numbers do to the dramatic increase on one of two points, one being speed, which LED dredge takes full advantage of, therefore runs 7-12 land to fit in spells to support the speed aspect as much as possible(4led,4breakthrough,2deepanal,3unmask) but the deck takes a hit on consistency.
Two being consistency,this is were LEDless dredge comes in to try to offer you a more stable opening 7 by leaning more towards the consistency aspect more than the speed.
Now their is no correct balance and you can play whatever you feel suits your play style the best.
Now back to your question
Some people(myself included) find that the balance of speed/constituency is comfortable for us at the number 12-14.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciberon
Your going to find that the since the list is extremely tight anything you try to increase decreases something else(Trying to make this as SIMPLE to understand..) so you playing 15 lands most likely means your trading in speed for the added comfort of more lands.
Now to address the gem I quoted on top.
Playing more lands to try to up your game against counters/waste by cutting speed might be your preferd play style but just because i run 13 lands and your run more doesn't mean your game is that much better.
I beat merfolk twice at vestal lotus torn on the back of SPEED.
merfolk doesn't care if you can get a putrid imp out or you make your 2-3 land drop. You need to realize if you can resolve a breakthrough/cc/cs. theyre in a world of trouble.
You can fight logic with stating the obvious idc there is no right list its play style im not going to respond if you just state different facts with out counter posting to mine with insightful/useful info.
Thats why i just ignore sunshines posts.:tongue:
FixedQuote:
Originally Posted by Anusien
Funny, I was thinking the same thing :wink: .Quote:
Originally Posted by jimirynk
So in that matchup is your plan DDD, then play a land, get Careful Study Dazed and your only land Wastelanded? Or is your plan to play a land, get your discard outlet countered, draw up to 8 and start discarding and dredging?Quote:
Originally Posted by BreathWeapon
In that kind of matchup, my plan is to keep a land with 2 lands and two discard outlets, and just outlast their disruption.
No the plan is playing putrid imp/tribe and even if they wasteland it doesn't matter because you just DDD and win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anusien
You never get those countered or killed?Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew77
running 15 lands is only 2% hire chance of having a land in your opening 7 than 14 lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anusien
14 has a 2% hire than 13, so don't talk like you run some high number.
It is easier to mulligan to lands then to mulligan to draw.
Running the right balance of Lands/Dredgers/Draw/Discard is up to play style.
Folk has so many different approaches to beat you, it can be a hard match up but their is no direct way to beat them.
Do to the possibility of MD propaganda, relic, spell pierce and jittie.