[Deck] Dredge

I get the impression that Mental Misstep with strengthen either more dedicated Control Decks to be viable, or else strengthen tempo decks to be even more powerful powerhouses, and possibly go in some aggro decks like zoo and goblins or something...

The point is that the card strengthens tempo decks, Our good matchups, and possibly brings back control decks, another good matchup. and by strengthening these archetypes weakens combo, generally our bad matchups.

so basically, more control, more tempo, less combo = hooray for dredge. am I on the right track here guys?

One thing i'm afraid of is aggro decks with surgical extraction and misstep turning into bad matchups, but they already have tormods crypt so I can't really see them adding both or replacing crypt .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flan R-E

I get the impression that Mental Misstep with strengthen either more dedicated Control Decks to be viable, or else strengthen tempo decks to be even more powerful powerhouses, and possibly go in some aggro decks like zoo and goblins or something...

The point is that the card strengthens tempo decks, Our good matchups, and possibly brings back control decks, another good matchup. and by strengthening these archetypes weakens combo, generally our bad matchups.

so basically, more control, more tempo, less combo = hooray for dredge. am I on the right track here guys?

One thing i'm afraid of is aggro decks with surgical extraction and misstep turning into bad matchups, but they already have tormods crypt so I can't really see them adding both or replacing crypt .

---

Not really. The fact that Blue-Tempo and Blue-Control decks are better is indeed not to be that feared, because tempo decks cannot dilute their core much more with even more counters (they will switch the less impressive ones), and they are low on threats, so we have outs for them.

Zoo and probably Goblins, on the other hand, can dilute their core easily to fit 4 MMs and still be fast. We have to worry about them, because if they counter our only outlet, our chance of racing them is smaller, as they will be racing us.

Besides, if MM end up being that good, Chalice decks will make a comeback, they are obvious answers to these low curve counterspell based decks. The terrible side is that Chalice-Aggro decks are a terrible matchup for us, because they slow us down to DDD, but put enough pressure for DDD to be too slow. Besides, Trinisphere screw us bigtime.

Now thinking about it, I think Ichorid may make a comeback to this deck, being better when we are in DDD mode. Also, increasing the amount of Dredgers, and playing Firestorms are all good outs.

But, of course, that all depends on what the meta will shift to.

I wrote a long reply, but the forums ate it so I will give you the TLDR version:
1) Basically if you think LED is less consistent that is laughable(seriously think about it) and defies logic.
2) Trying to beat counterspells by PLAYING MORE 1CC SPELLS against decks with 4 MM, 4FOW, and 3 daze, will not work. You cannot, in a dredge deck, reliably have multiple outlets + land + dredgers in your opening hand, it just isnt feasable.
3) I used to side out LED in alot of matchups(and still do against merfolk, and other non-goyf aggro decks, where firestorm is nutty) but since the printing of Leyine of sanctity it is much easier to just play your game 2's and 3's like your game 1's just with leyline of sanctity. Alot of decks cant play relic (because of goyf, kotr, welder, whatever) so everyone is on the crypt, or trap, or bog, or GSZ for loaming shaman, or wheel of sun and moon or whatever plan. and Leyline trumps all of them, cant be countered, doesent prevent you from using LED by sitting in your hand. Plus you have the sick bonus of the card being very good against alot of decks anyway(burn, ANT, painted stone[nice intuition] etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

I wrote a long reply, but the forums ate it so I will give you the TLDR version:
1) Basically if you think LED is less consistent that is laughable(seriously think about it) and defies logic.
2) Trying to beat counterspells by PLAYING MORE 1CC SPELLS against decks with 4 MM, 4FOW, and 3 daze, will not work. You cannot, in a dredge deck, reliably have multiple outlets + land + dredgers in your opening hand, it just isnt feasable.
3) I used to side out LED in alot of matchups(and still do against merfolk, and other non-goyf aggro decks, where firestorm is nutty) but since the printing of Leyine of sanctity it is much easier to just play your game 2's and 3's like your game 1's just with leyline of sanctity. Alot of decks cant play relic (because of goyf, kotr, welder, whatever) so everyone is on the crypt, or trap, or bog, or GSZ for loaming shaman, or wheel of sun and moon or whatever plan. and Leyline trumps all of them, cant be countered, doesent prevent you from using LED by sitting in your hand. Plus you have the sick bonus of the card being very good against alot of decks anyway(burn, ANT, painted stone[nice intuition] etc.).

---

1) Proof? I don't exactly stalk the deck check replacements but most of the dredge decks i've seen place anywhere recently have all been non-LED. I don't think I've met or played with anyone who has had the opinion that LED version is more consistant. Can I see your list? I'd love to test your build and put it thorugh it's paces on my own to decide if it is or isnt less consistant, since from all the results and prior testing I've done it hasn't stood up to non-LED.

2) I'm likely not going to be trying to fit more 1cc spells in my deck, I'm just going to roll deep with the 16-20 (if you count breakthrough) maindeck discard outlets that I have at 1cc. They only have 4 FoWs and 4 Missteps. Even then they may yet swap out daze for Misstep.... I've never had a problem before as 1 counterspell isn't going to stop you, typically, and that isn't going to change becuase they have 4 other conditional counters.

3) Leyline of Sanctity is good, I'll grant you that. They fluctuate in and out of my board as I feel necessary and are likely to make a more permanent residency in my board at some point soon. So I can't really speak ill here on this card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

I wrote a long reply, but the forums ate it so I will give you the TLDR version:
1) Basically if you think LED is less consistent that is laughable(seriously think about it) and defies logic.

---

No, it doesnt defy logic, and it is supported by results. Playing a build with LED and Deep Analysis means you have to cut important pieces. Usually 2 Lands and 4 Tireless Tribe. This means it is harder to find a land to play your 1cmc spells, leading to more mulligans, and reducing the number of permenant dicscard outlets makes you far more likely to fizzle due to cracking an LED, but not hitting another dredger once you drdge back the first dredger you discard with the LED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

2) Trying to beat counterspells by PLAYING MORE 1CC SPELLS against decks with 4 MM, 4FOW, and 3 daze, will not work. You cannot, in a dredge deck, reliably have multiple outlets + land + dredgers in your opening hand, it just isnt feasable.

---

It seems unlikely that many decks will run that much permission, other than Merfolk, since Daze will probably be replaced by MM for the most part, since Bant/Team America they would have to cut threats or other better disruption than Daze.

What do you suggest ? It seems kinda pointless to say "X will not work" without suggesting an alternative. I think against a deck playing that much perissions you can afford to choose to draw and just DDD. If 10+ 'free' counterspells becomes the norm for blue decks, then builds with 4 Ichorid, 4 Cabal Therapy, and possible even Bloodghast may become the norm for Dredge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

3) I used to side out LED in alot of matchups(and still do against merfolk, and other non-goyf aggro decks, where firestorm is nutty) but since the printing of Leyine of sanctity it is much easier to just play your game 2's and 3's like your game 1's just with leyline of sanctity. Alot of decks cant play relic (because of goyf, kotr, welder, whatever) so everyone is on the crypt, or trap, or bog, or GSZ for loaming shaman, or wheel of sun and moon or whatever plan. and Leyline trumps all of them, cant be countered, doesent prevent you from using LED by sitting in your hand. Plus you have the sick bonus of the card being very good against alot of decks anyway(burn, ANT, painted stone[nice intuition] etc.).

---

Why would you side out LED? If it makes the deck more consistant then surely it should always stay in. (sarcasm)

Starting with Leyline in play does seem very strong, but I dont like to add the additional pressure on the mulligans by playing Leylines. Though it could be pretty handy if you expect an abundance of ANT/TES/Burn.

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tip...&format=Legacy

In the past 2 months, for every one LED Dredge deck that makes top 8, there are ten Non-LED Dredge decks that top 8.



peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tip...&format=Legacy

In the past 2 months, for every one LED Dredge deck that makes top 8, there are ten Non-LED Dredge decks that top 8.



peace,
4eak

---

This doesn't automatically mean one build is superior to the other. This may mean, among other things, that LED-Dredge is less played due player preference or cost of the cards. Unless we have data on % in the field vs. top 8 penetration, only then can we make a judgment.

In the end, I'll always play the LED version because of it's explosiveness and I simply don't want to worry about M. Missteps ruining my first turn discard outlet.

The same argument, of course, can be made for Legacy decks in general. Which is fine, I agree with you to some extent - I absolutely must accept that what you've pointed out is a possibility.

I disagree, however, about whether or not we can reasonably make a judgement before we have the data you expect. In part, I disagree about the strength of the data you expect (assuming you are pointing towards the example spreadsheets we've seen from authors of magic articles). It isn't as good as you think it is. When you sit down to do monte carlo simulations of tournaments or even try to find something as simple as the matchup percentages between 2 decks, and you begin to recognize the magnitude of games that have to played to reasonably know things about magic, you'll see that even if we had the data from all of these tournaments of the type that you are talking about, it still wouldn't be significant enough to give us an acceptable degree of certainty.

Now, I'm not throwing away what you've said, I'm just disagreeing with what justifies and counts as reasonable judgements. Essentially, we have varying levels of confidence in our judgements because there are varying degrees of empirical or inductive strength. By all means, let me be the first to question what we actually 'know' about magic and metagaming. I'm far from certain about most of my judgements I make in magic and metagaming, but I certainly think I've got reasonable judgements from the evidence I do have.

It seems like we an acceptably strong inductive argument about how Non-LED dredge is consistent, powerful, and plenty good enough to make top 8's. Further, while I've not given proof, the data you can possibly expect doesn't count as proof either. I don't think it is unreasonable to look at this data and then go on to believe or make the judgement that Non-LED dredge really might be the better evolution of the deck. I think we do this all the time in general metagaming.


peace,
4eak

What are your thoughts about this?

An opponent says "Why didn't you cabal therapy me game 1, turn 1, instead of casting your discard outlet to see if I was capable of countering it?"

If I open with a land (that makes black), dredger, pimp, cabal therapy and 3 randoms and it is game 1 against an unknown opponent, what wins games more often?

What I think: Overall, you're going to experience more turn 1s against unknown opponents who do not Force of Will (or Mental Misstep, doh!) than who will.

I'm playing a breakneck LED version which is an all-in kind of deck. So, if I didn't know what my opponent is playing, shouldn't I just cast the discard outlet?

Appreciate opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Octopusman

What are your thoughts about this?

An opponent says "Why didn't you cabal therapy me game 1, turn 1, instead of casting your discard outlet to see if I was capable of countering it?"

If I open with a land (that makes black), dredger, pimp, cabal therapy and 3 randoms and it is game 1 against an unknown opponent, what wins games more often?

What I think: Overall, you're going to experience more turn 1s against unknown opponents who do not Force of Will (or Mental Misstep, doh!) than who will.

I'm playing a breakneck LED version which is an all-in kind of deck. So, if I didn't know what my opponent is playing, shouldn't I just cast the discard outlet?

Appreciate opinions.

---

I assume this means you are on the play.

It depends on your metagame. Do they know you are playing dredge? e.g. If you have a high percentage of Merfolk/Bant decks and the rest of the meta is quite slow (no ANT/Belcher etc...) then I would cast Therapy, especially if they know you are playing dredge, since a good blue opponent will not keep a 7 cards hand without a way to stop a discard outlet. Whereas if your meta is more aggro/rock/combo based, then just cast the Imp, since you dont want to get Thoughtseized or just get raced by a good aggro draw by throwing away your first turn with a Therapy. If you only have the one land in hand, then cast the outlet also means you are not just cold to wasteland. It would be awkward to cast Therapy naming Force and see a bunch of Goblins and a Wasteland...

As the meta adjusts to include Mental Misstep there will probably be fewer Dazes being played as the tempo decks accomodate a set of MM, so choosing to be on the draw would help this situation a lot, as the risk of getting your turn 1 play dazed drops, and you cant really play arounf Force/MM without using excessive resources and exposing yourself to other problems (wasteland). You could just draw to 8 and discard if they lead with a blue land, then cast your spells once you have established more than 1 dredge card in your graveyard through DDD. Even if they are playing aggro you should still be able to race them. Combo would be a bit tircky, as would decks playing an abundance of 1cmc targeted discard. So it really depends on your read on the metagame and of your opponent.

The 'all in' decks need to be especially careful of getting blown out by disruption. While the LED-Less builds run enough permenant outlets to recover from the bad situation of getting outlets countered (you have more outlets which dont require you to dump all the other spells you wanted to cast), as well as play around hate by not dumping everything to an LED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Octopusman

What are your thoughts about this?

An opponent says "Why didn't you cabal therapy me game 1, turn 1, instead of casting your discard outlet to see if I was capable of countering it?"

If I open with a land (that makes black), dredger, pimp, cabal therapy and 3 randoms and it is game 1 against an unknown opponent, what wins games more often?

What I think: Overall, you're going to experience more turn 1s against unknown opponents who do not Force of Will (or Mental Misstep, doh!) than who will.

I'm playing a breakneck LED version which is an all-in kind of deck. So, if I didn't know what my opponent is playing, shouldn't I just cast the discard outlet?

Appreciate opinions.

---

On the play, I would play the outlet. if the guy misses to counter it, chances are that he missed the game, since I will dredge, therapy, and possibly re-therapy. I agree, blue decks usually got an out for T1 broken plays, but if he kept daze, he missed to counter. If he kept FoW, he just 2-for-1'd; and if he mull'd to either, he 2-for-1'd or 3-for-1'd, things considered. By second turn, I therapy myself.

On the draw, if they drop blue mana generator/fetch, I'd DDD the first turn, and the second if I didn't hit a Dredger in the first.

The suggested move looks worse than DDD. You will have 5 cards, and if you miss his counter, and he is actually able to counter, you will sit for more 3 turns, while in DDD mode, you'd sit for 2 turns (on the play) and still have the therapy and the outlet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sims

1) Proof? I don't exactly stalk the deck check replacements but most of the dredge decks i've seen place anywhere recently have all been non-LED. I don't think I've met or played with anyone who has had the opinion that LED version is more consistant. Can I see your list? I'd love to test your build and put it thorugh it's paces on my own to decide if it is or isnt less consistant, since from all the results and prior testing I've done it hasn't stood up to non-LED.

---

Basically lets say in a generic dredge deck you have X outlets, Y Lands, and Z Dredgers. Normally you want a hand with XYZ, but if some of your discard outlets are LED's then some number of hands with just XZ are keepable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sims

2) I'm likely not going to be trying to fit more 1cc spells in my deck, I'm just going to roll deep with the 16-20 (if you count breakthrough) maindeck discard outlets that I have at 1cc. They only have 4 FoWs and 4 Missteps. Even then they may yet swap out daze for Misstep.... I've never had a problem before as 1 counterspell isn't going to stop you, typically, and that isn't going to change becuase they have 4 other conditional counters.

3) Leyline of Sanctity is good, I'll grant you that. They fluctuate in and out of my board as I feel necessary and are likely to make a more permanent residency in my board at some point soon. So I can't really speak ill here on this card.

---

Except you as the dredge, player have no leeway in what hands you can keep: you would snap keep a hand like Land, pimp, pimp, Grave troll, thug, Ichorid, Dread return. Except this hand is pretty cold to MM + wasteland (its also cold to FOW + wasteland, but the fact that MM does not require pitching a card means that you have fewer turns on average to find some more action before you lose.) Game 1, an opponent will almost never FOW your LED unless they know what you are playing(protip: dont show them your deck while shuffling).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

The same argument, of course, can be made for Legacy decks in general. Which is fine, I agree with you to some extent - I absolutely must accept that what you've pointed out is a possibility.

I disagree, however, about whether or not we can reasonably make a judgement before we have the data you expect. In part, I disagree about the strength of the data you expect (assuming you are pointing towards the example spreadsheets we've seen from authors of magic articles). It isn't as good as you think it is. When you sit down to do monte carlo simulations of tournaments or even try to find something as simple as the matchup percentages between 2 decks, and you begin to recognize the magnitude of games that have to played to reasonably know things about magic, you'll see that even if we had the data from all of these tournaments of the type that you are talking about, it still wouldn't be significant enough to give us an acceptable degree of certainty.

Now, I'm not throwing away what you've said, I'm just disagreeing with what justifies and counts as reasonable judgements. Essentially, we have varying levels of confidence in our judgements because there are varying degrees of empirical or inductive strength. By all means, let me be the first to question what we actually 'know' about magic and metagaming. I'm far from certain about most of my judgements I make in magic and metagaming, but I certainly think I've got reasonable judgements from the evidence I do have.

It seems like we an acceptably strong inductive argument about how Non-LED dredge is consistent, powerful, and plenty good enough to make top 8's. Further, while I've not given proof, the data you can possibly expect doesn't count as proof either. I don't think it is unreasonable to look at this data and then go on to believe or make the judgement that Non-LED dredge really might be the better evolution of the deck. I think we do this all the time in general metagaming.


peace,
4eak

---

Firstly the data-set you linked is a complete joke. Magic-league tournaments? A tournament in Standish Maine? How many people do you think were there? The vast majority of those top 8's are small local tournaments. If you look at just the data for large tournaments(say over 100 people) you will find the ratio is closer.

I think dredge has some special qualities that make me doubtful of trying to say that non-LED versions are "statistically better" in fact, at the boston open, there were exactly 2 dredge players in the top 32, one was me and one was another LED player. If non-LED versions are more played and they are(lets be real here, alot of the dredge players play dredge because it is inexpensive, although I think that anyone who chooses a deck based on price is doing it wrong) then of course they are going to place well more often. I play dredge because It is the deck that i have the most experence with(although I have the resecources to build basically everything except high tide) and I have consistently performed with it: making top 32 at both SCG opens ive been to this year. Furthermore, dredge is for sure a deck that if you are running well, it barely matters what list you are playing as long as it is reasonable. Ive never had the "consistency" problems that supposedly plague LED versions. When I lose with the deck I can almost always point to some decision I made that was incorrect, or sometimes my opponents just "have it all" in the postboard games, I never wished my LED's were anything else, in fact when you are in a bad spot often LED is the ONLY card that can win you the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakkarr

No, it doesnt defy logic, and it is supported by results. Playing a build with LED and Deep Analysis means you have to cut important pieces. Usually 2 Lands and 4 Tireless Tribe. This means it is harder to find a land to play your 1cmc spells, leading to more mulligans, and reducing the number of permenant dicscard outlets makes you far more likely to fizzle due to cracking an LED, but not hitting another dredger once you drdge back the first dredger you discard with the LED.


It seems unlikely that many decks will run that much permission, other than Merfolk, since Daze will probably be replaced by MM for the most part, since Bant/Team America they would have to cut threats or other better disruption than Daze.

What do you suggest ? It seems kinda pointless to say "X will not work" without suggesting an alternative. I think against a deck playing that much perissions you can afford to choose to draw and just DDD. If 10+ 'free' counterspells becomes the norm for blue decks, then builds with 4 Ichorid, 4 Cabal Therapy, and possible even Bloodghast may become the norm for Dredge.

---

The alternative im suggesting is to play LED obviously. And I ALREADY play 4 therapy 4 ichorid. Playing less than 4 therapy seems insaine to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakkarr

Why would you side out LED? If it makes the deck more consistant then surely it should always stay in. (sarcasm)

Starting with Leyline in play does seem very strong, but I dont like to add the additional pressure on the mulligans by playing Leylines. Though it could be pretty handy if you expect an abundance of ANT/TES/Burn.

---

I usually side it out against decks vulnerable to firestorm. I generally would NOT side it out in the mirror or against combo decks. That just leaves control decks: frequently ill just watch them while they sideboard to try and get a read and change the deck accordingly.

@ 2nd_lawl

Quote:

---

Firstly the data-set you linked is a complete joke.

---

I'm already arguing that. I hope I was clear about my doubt. Just looking at the +100 person tournaments, however, is also a joke. For now, tournament data isn't the holy grail; our current level of tournament data is just too small. It is the best we've got though, and so we've gotta make it work.

The data I put forth (which I'm hoping is better than nothing) is the best I've seen. It is what I have to work with, the conclusions I draw are the best I can do. And, yes, I actually am interested in tournament data smaller than 100 people.

Quote:

---

If you look at just the data for large tournaments(say over 100 people) you will find the ratio is closer.

---

It is closer. For this year, even limiting ourselves to +100 person tournaments, the ratio in placement of Non-LED to LED is still ~7.5 to 1. I'm certainly not saying LED Dredge isn't playable, far from it. But, I have good reason to doubt your LED bias, even without penetration %'s, and even if the ratio is closer given your specifications with the data we do have.



peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

Basically lets say in a generic dredge deck you have X outlets, Y Lands, and Z Dredgers. Normally you want a hand with XYZ, but if some of your discard outlets are LED's then some number of hands with just XZ are keepable.

---

LED is only a land if you also have a Deep analysis in that hand, since saccing it means you didnt actually get to use that mana. You just paid 0 mana and discarded your whole hand in your XZ situation. Plus the fact that LED builds pretty much have to run fewer lands than LED-less to fit in LED means that getting an XZY scenario is more probably in an LED-Less build. Not to mention the fact that permenant discard outlets are far superior once resolved compared to LED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

Except you as the dredge, player have no leeway in what hands you can keep: you would snap keep a hand like Land, pimp, pimp, Grave troll, thug, Ichorid, Dread return. Except this hand is pretty cold to MM + wasteland (its also cold to FOW + wasteland, but the fact that MM does not require pitching a card means that you have fewer turns on average to find some more action before you lose.) Game 1, an opponent will almost never FOW your LED unless they know what you are playing(protip: dont show them your deck while shuffling).

---

Against a deck playing MM and Force you should be DDD'ing, but I assume you mean we have no idea what they are on. I am pretty sure most of our hands are vulnerable to double-awesome card draw. As I said before, if MM and Force becomes the norm, then choose to draw and play it safe. Running an LED out assuming they wont force it seems risky in itself, as does cracking it as your only way to get cards in the yard, since you now have no acceleration and no permenant outlet in play. e.g. If you crack your LED and pitch one dredger and dont hit another one then you are boned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

I think dredge has some special qualities that make me doubtful of trying to say that non-LED versions are "statistically better" in fact, at the boston open, there were exactly 2 dredge players in the top 32, one was me and one was another LED player. If non-LED versions are more played and they are(lets be real here, alot of the dredge players play dredge because it is inexpensive, although I think that anyone who chooses a deck based on price is doing it wrong) then of course they are going to place well more often. I play dredge because It is the deck that i have the most experence with(although I have the resecources to build basically everything except high tide) and I have consistently performed with it: making top 32 at both SCG opens ive been to this year. Furthermore, dredge is for sure a deck that if you are running well, it barely matters what list you are playing as long as it is reasonable. Ive never had the "consistency" problems that supposedly plague LED versions. When I lose with the deck I can almost always point to some decision I made that was incorrect, or sometimes my opponents just "have it all" in the postboard games, I never wished my LED's were anything else, in fact when you are in a bad spot often LED is the ONLY card that can win you the game.

---

I always found that LED was strong when I was trying to be a combo deck and do unfair things on turn 1/2, but caused issues when sideboarding and having to deal with hate. In environements like the SCG 5K's in March, which showed little graveyard hate, I think LED dredge would perform almost identically to LED-less, but running more lands and being able to play slow games more effecticly by running more permenant discard outlets makes grinding out wins that much more do-able.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

The alternative im suggesting is to play LED obviously. And I ALREADY play 4 therapy 4 ichorid. Playing less than 4 therapy seems insaine to me.

---

The problem with justifying the use of LED because it cant be hit by MM is that the same argument can be applied to DDD'ing, if you play an LED, land and Careful Study/Breakthrough, and crack LED in respone, they can just MM/Force the Study/Breathrough, so you are no better off than if you had DDD'd.

I was refering to the fact that many Ichorid decks run 3 Ichorids and 3 Cabal Therapies, the list that came 2nd at a SCG 5L was running 2 Ichorids. I am suggesting that a full set of both will become the norm, since DDD'ing will be both necessary and better in a format filled with MM and tempo decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakkarr

I was refering to the fact that many Ichorid decks run 3 Ichorids and 3 Cabal Therapies, the list that came 2nd at a SCG 5L was running 2 Ichorids. I am suggesting that a full set of both will become the norm, since DDD'ing will be both necessary and better in a format filled with MM and tempo decks.

---

First of all, thanks for the replies.

I was thinking quite a bit and I do agree that DDD is going to be used quite a bit. Getting a FoW with therapy is nice until you see that they also have a MM. They basically have 8 FoW against our best spells now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Octopusman

First of all, thanks for the replies.

I was thinking quite a bit and I do agree that DDD is going to be used quite a bit. Getting a FoW with therapy is nice until you see that they also have a MM. They basically have 8 FoW against our best spells now.

---

That isnt scary, since MM cant stop a Dread Return, and you can just wait for another therapy if you want to resolve breakthrough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakkarr

That isnt scary, since MM cant stop a Dread Return, and you can just wait for another therapy if you want to resolve breakthrough.

---

True enough, but if I've cast therapy, even if I'm on the draw that will be three turns before I can dredge via DDD. Four if I'm on the play. Also, the odds of getting a 2nd therapy that soon isn't that great. Am I missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Octopusman

True enough, but if I've cast therapy, even if I'm on the draw that will be three turns before I can dredge via DDD. Four if I'm on the play. Also, the odds of getting a 2nd therapy that soon isn't that great. Am I missing something?

---

I was refering to casting it from your yard. i.e. Dont cast the Therapy in your hand, draw to 8, dredge. Repeat utiil you get a free dude in play, idealy with a Cabal therpay in the yard as well, so you never have to go below 7 cards. You probably want at least one spare dredger in your yard, then flashback/cast from hand naming force, then either cast the one in hard or flashback the once you just played to hit any other permission, then once the path is clear you cast your spells that you want to resolve, i.e. Study/Breakthrough.

Because this is substantially slower than just running your spells out, and you may be playing around a force/MM that isnt there, I think it is important to always understand how fast you need to be. Are you playing against a deck with 12 counterspells and barely any threats? Or an Aggro deck that just happens to be playing some free permission. Such as a Merfolk deck playing 12 lords. As well as decks like Doomsday/Show and Tell. Playing slow may just let them cast a turn 2 doomsday and get an emrakul before you can do anyhting about it because you were too cautious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakkarr

LED is only a land if you also have a Deep analysis in that hand, since saccing it means you didnt actually get to use that mana. You just paid 0 mana and discarded your whole hand in your XZ situation.

---

So?
I do this all the time, On the play its faster than DDD, and even on the draw you can still DDD and just sandbag the LED until you dredge a DA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakkarr

I always found that LED was strong when I was trying to be a combo deck and do unfair things on turn 1/2, but caused issues when sideboarding and having to deal with hate.

---

Leyline of sanctity allievates this problem. Now you can be a combo deck in Every game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

So?
I do this all the time, On the play its faster than DDD, and even on the draw you can still DDD and just sandbag the LED until you dredge a DA.

---

So that means you are still loozing for an XYZ situation. In which Z is Deep Analysis. Considering your entire point was that LED gave you hand that were keepable with just two cards, that it actually doesnt becaause you need a third to be better than a DDD situation means your point is moot, since playing more lands in a nonLED version (14-15 compared to your 11 + 8 permenenant outlets) means the XYZ situation is way more probably in LEDless builds.

DDD'ing until you hit a deep analysis seems quite strong,. I like the ability to run into acceleration which doesnt rely on having 3 dudes (DR a sphinx) or playing lands (everything else), but if you I suspect if you wait 3 turns then run out an LED, they will probably use the force if they have it. But it does still seems decent, though still reliant on resolving spells. The fact that you much have an LED in hand to even consider it though is pretty awkward. Since with 11-12 lands you are unlikely to pay its cost off lands a whole lot, especially if you are relying on DDD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2nd_lawl

Leyline of sanctity allievates this problem. Now you can be a combo deck in Every game!

---

At the cost of boarding in a card which adds to the inconsitancy of the deck by not hitting plenty of the GY hate, as well as cutting cards which do much better things from the MD, i.e. If you are cutting accelerators/Ichorids to play Leyline then you are already slowing the deck down. Plus considering you were arguing the XYZ siuation before, making it a WXYZ situation doesnt help much.