[Deck] Non-LED Based Dredge/Ichorid Combo

[jimirynk]

Honest question here.
WTF are you guys losing to?
I mean besides are bad match-ups (prison, mirror, combo) what decks are you guys losing to?
I'm not asking you what hate you're losing to, or what we should lose to, what are you honestly having a hard time beating?

Build your 75 to help you with those match-up's stop posting lists trying to justify running ichorid and bloodghast.

[Anusien]

Aside from Prison, Dredge doesn't have matchups against decks. It has matchups against hate cards.

[Grillo]

I'm losing to prison and merfolk.
FOW + daze + wasteland + vial is a bit too much.
They can control the early game and then win the attrition war vialing in lord after lord... DDD is not an option against merfolk.

[kicks_422]

Seriously? Merfolk?

When I built my sideboard, I initially thought of what decks to prepare for, but eventually I realized I was thinking of what hate each deck would bring in against me, not bring in something to stop them from doing their thing... So I would agree with Anusien.

[johanessen]

FOW + daze + wasteland + vial is a bit too much.

Add cursecatcher and we are fucked. I don't fear Vial more than cursecatcher. But after side, firestorm is teh nutz. This is why firestorm is really needed in the sideboard.

[Grillo]

Add cursecatcher and we are fucked. I don't fear Vial more than cursecatcher. But after side, firestorm is teh nutz. This is why firestorm is really needed in the sideboard.

Yes firestorm is the nutz... when you can resolve it.

[andrew77]

Why do people even post bloodghast lists here? They should start another thread in the new/developmental forum where they can talk about awful decks running bloodghast.

[Anusien]

I'm losing to prison and merfolk.
FOW + daze + wasteland + vial is a bit too much.
They can control the early game and then win the attrition war vialing in lord after lord... DDD is not an option against merfolk.

Then you're doing something wrong. Feldman beat these lists that had all that plus maindeck Relic of Progenitus.

[SMR0079]

Trying to fit in both Bloodghast and Ichorid in the traditional shell while still maintaining consistent ratios is difficult.

Has anyone tried straight up swapping Narcomoebas for Bloodghast?

My friend was complaining about Narco the other day and had trimmed down to 3 in his Bloodghast/Ichorid list. I first balked at his idea, then the more we talked about it, I suggested he just cut the Narcos entirely.

This will certainly slow the deck down a bit when you don't have a recurring land, as you won't flip Narcos for free off your last big dredge before you cast Dread Return. However, games 2 & 3 you aren't really trying to do that anyway.

If you are able to play a land the turn you are dredging than Bloodghast accomplishes what NArco does and much more. Running Oboro would help support this plan.

I know it's a radical idea, and possibly garbage, but I think it's worth giving a try if you are running both creatures.

[Aleksandr]

Why do people even post bloodghast lists here? They should start another thread in the new/developmental forum where they can talk about awful decks running bloodghast.

Smokin' too much?

Bloodghast is the best card since BfB.

[Anusien]

Smokin' too much?

Bloodghast is the best card since BfB.

There's not strong consensus to that fact. I agree, actually. I'd not like to see this become a war of Bloodghast versus Ichorid. If you want Ichorids, stay here. If you want Bloodghast, start a new list. If LED/LEDless are divergent enough for new threads, so is Bloodghast.

[andrew77]

Then you're doing something wrong. Feldman beat these lists that had all that plus maindeck Relic of Progenitus.

If you are talking about his matches at GP Chicago he got extremely lucky. His opponent made mistake after mistake. There really was no excuse for the merfolk player to lose, but I guess the feature match got to him.

Also on bloodghast. I won't go into depth, but I will say this. It is strictly worse than ichorid. That means ichorid stays over it. If you still want to fit it that means you are diluting the deck and making it slower and worse. Any version with bloodghast plays very differently from ichorid versions. I would say LEDless ichorid is more similar to LED dredge than it is to the awful bloodghast lists so if there are separate lists for LED, and LEDless there should be a separate list for bloodghast lists.

The real issue with bloodghast is that not only is it unimpressive, but it does more harm than good. Sure you might be more consistent and it might help some matchups, but it completely screws other matchups up. Please explain to me how a bloodghast list has any game against combo? You go off turn 4 on average compared to their turn 2. Also due to the fact they are so slow bloodghast lists will have huge problems against traditionally easy matchups like 43 lands. Giving them 3-4 turns means they will find a chasm and you will lose.

[Aleksandr]

Also due to the fact they are so slow bloodghast lists will have huge problems against traditionally easy matchups like 43 lands. Giving them 3-4 turns means they will find a chasm and you will lose.

Like that it matters, because 75% of meta consist of 43_Land.crapdeck...

I always thought that one of the strengths of the Ichorid deck is its total noninteractivity (or call it however you wish). 2/1 imbecils that skip from GY and do not die to removal (sort of) are weak since when? If such is a case, than take out Moebas, too.

Taking out LEDs and adding Ghasts is reasonable move, as you make the deck more consistent and you increase your threat count... etc. I'm too lazy to explain something that obvious.

Otoh, play the deck as you like to, I cannot care less.



V From the thread where ppl seriously advice to take out FKZ. V

Also due to the fact they are so slow bloodghast lists...

^ From the thread where ppl seriously advice to take out FKZ. ^

[andrew77]

Like that it matters, because 75% of meta consist of 43_Land.crapdeck...

Actually 43 land has put up much better results than bloodghast dredge. Bloodghast dredge has almost 0 results due to the fact that it sucks.

I always thought that one of the strengths of the Ichorid deck is its total noninteractivity (or call it however you wish). 2/1 imbecils that skip from GY and do not die to removal (sort of) are weak since when? If such is a case, than take out Moebas, too.

LED dredge is noninteractive too. If you really value noninteractivity though why don't you drop cabal therapy from your list? Anyway moeba doesn't compare to bloodghast as it doesn't require screwing up your lands etc.

Taking out LEDs and adding Ghasts is reasonable move, as you make the deck more consistent and you increase your threat count... etc. I'm too lazy to explain something that obvious.

There is a balance between consistency and speed. Adding bloodghast gives you consistency you don't really need while slowing you down massively. Put it this way. If you could run 8 ichorids would you? I seriously doubt it. If fow didn't exist the LED lists would probably only run 2 or 3 main as ichorid itself is slow. Bloodghast is not only slow, but requires you to screw up the manabase, and is generally awful. It doesn't die at eot to feed bridges and a 2/1 that can't block isn't all that impressive.

[johanessen]

Bloodghast dredge has almost 0 results due to the fact that it sucks.

Yeah:

Matthew Bartlett StarCityGames.com $5,000 Legacy Open - Philadelphia 11.10.2009 3rd/Many
Ginés Valera Liga Valenciana de Legacy II. Torneo 2 18.10.2009 5th/59
Alessandro Teneggi The Reckoning 08.11.2009 1st/82
Josué López Liga Valenciana de Legacy II. Torneo 2 18.10.2009 1st/59
Darío González Final Liga Madrileña de Legacy 25.10.2009 1st/28
Artur Marciniak Legacy League - Poznan 14/11 14.11.2009 2nd/25
Joachim Feuerstein Legacy Bäckerei Müller Leverkusen 31/10 31.10.2009 4th/13
Dominik Tillmann Legacy Bäckerei Müller Leverkusen 14/11/09 14.11.2009 1st/16


deckcheck.net

[FieryBalrog]

Whenever I've played against Dredge, lists that combine Bloodghast and Ichorid are much more scary than lists that only use either one alone.

[YigSnakeDaddy]

Has anyone any reports on the games from these tourneys? I'd like to see how big Bloodghasts role actually was. Or if the matches couldn't have been won by regular Dredge too, because that's the feeling I get when I watch people play with BGhast.
Despite the obvious appliance in Dredge, I still think it takes too much support to justify its use.

Which brings me to the next point. Since the recent trend in Dredge focuses so much on Bloodghast and it's support cards like Dakmor, I find it quite unfair to still call it Ichorid-Dredge, since good old Ike plays second fiddle to his baby brother.

[johanessen]

Has anyone any reports on the games from these tourneys? I'd like to see how big Bloodghasts role actually was. Or if the matches couldn't have been won by regular Dredge too, because that's the feeling I get when I watch people play with BGhast.

http://www.magic4all.es/index.php?op...orts&Itemid=10

It's in spanish, you may need a translator

[4eak]

To make Bloodghast worthwhile it requires surgery on the mana-base and a different strategy. It has different strengths. I'm not so much a fan of BG-Dredge in game 1. I am, however, a much bigger fan of it in games 2 and 3. From my testing (feel free to do your own, as it will be difficult to see some of these points without actual pilot experience), BG-Dredge:

Positive=

• Has a mana-base which makes DDD even stronger.
• Requires the smallest GY of any build to be actively grinding out the opponent.
• Is less reliant upon Bridge, and is thus less linear than other Dredge builds.
  
  • It has an alternate recursive plan, yet another way to win, that also works in conjunction with regular Ichorid.
  • Because it can more reliably recur creatures into play, it isn't as concerned about having multiple Bridges before blowing a "sac-outlet".
  • Even 1 Bridge, 1 BG, and 1 Bounce land will force your opponent into playing very differently.
• Has more ways to abuse Bridge. This is ironic, but true. BG simultaneously makes positions with and without Bridge stronger than what is available to LEDless.
• Plays through artifact-based GY hate (forcing it early usually) even without Ancient Grudge.
• Has even fewer mana-requirements to function (playing land is not necessarily the same as using mana)
• Has an even better matchup against blue-based control decks -- dropping land doesn't use the stack.

Negative=

• It is slower, by roughly a turn.
• Can't cast or use abilities which require 2 lands (CC, 2cc Spells, etc.) nearly as well.
• If your opponent maintains creature parity with you (let me stress how difficult this can be for an opponent to achieve), they have X/+3 creatures, and you lack bridges, then Bloodghasts aren't very useful.
• Has an even weaker matchup against combo decks.
• Has more problems against very strong openings from opposing aggro decks.
• Will likely not support Red, Green, and White costs as well as regular LEDless (although it also has much less need for the colors)

Anyone still struggling with "should I run DR targets in the main?" and "What is the use of DDD, doesn't it suck?" is unlikely to appreciate or be as fully capable of piloting LEDless builds designed with Bloodghast in mind. If you think Dredge's primary problem is not speed, but instead running interference against opposing hate and breaking apart this decks linearity into more more flexible gameplan possibilities, then you should test Bloodghast some more. I'm not saying it is the only option, but I think its a viable option.





peace,
4eak

[Aleksandr]

4eak summed it very well. I just cannot stress how true is namely this:

It has an alternate recursive plan, yet another way to win, that also works in conjunction with regular Ichorid.
...
Has an even better matchup against blue-based control decks -- dropping land doesn't use the stack.