Vintage Adept Q&A #18: Dawn of the Dead

[Demonic Attorney]

What are the forces that are keeping Dredge at 10-20% metagame penetration?  Why does its performance seem to be localized into certain areas (Manila, Philly, NY)?  At what point do players begin to crack 8 hate cards?  10 hate cards?  Is there a balancing mechanism inherent in fighting such a linear strategy - will its success create a feedback loop or has the deck gotten strong enough to move past that? What happens if the field is 30% Dredge?  50% Dredge?  At what point do you start playing MD  hate cards?  Will we ever reach that point, or is sufficient SB hate enough of a balancing mechanism?  Will combo ever be sufficiently popular to suppress Dredge or is hate the only answer?

[Smmenen]

What are the forces that are keeping Dredge at 10-20% metagame penetration?  Why does its performance seem to be localized into certain areas (Manila, Philly, NY)?  At what point do players begin to crack 8 hate cards?  10 hate cards?  Is there a balancing mechanism inherent in fighting such a linear strategy - will its success create a feedback loop or has the deck gotten strong enough to move past that? What happens if the field is 30% Dredge?  50% Dredge?  At what point do you start playing MD  hate cards?  Will we ever reach that point, or is sufficient SB hate enough of a balancing mechanism?  Will combo ever be sufficiently popular to suppress Dredge or is hate the only answer?

1) What are the forces that are keeping Dredge at 10-20% metagame penetration?

In my experience, Dredge is most often less than 10% of metagame penetration.   It was 8% of the Waterbury last year.  It was 9.5% of the field at the Bazaar of Moxen.

The first force keeping Dredge at that level of the metagame is the fact that Vintage has a good deal of diversity.   With so many options to select from, it's difficult for any given archetype to make up more than 10% of the field.  When you consider all of the options: Workshop decks, Oath decks, Mana Drain control decks, Fish decks, Dredge, Combo decks and then other options, it's almost impossible for anything to be much more than 20% of the field.   There are simply too many options for a such deck to take up such metagame space.  

In legacy, it's very rare for any but the very top deck in a field to actually make up more than just slightly above 10% of the field.  In Vintage, the most popular archetypes sometimes can make it close to 20%, but it's still rare that a single archetype make up more than 20% of the field.    Natural diversity puts a hard limit on the proportion of a field that Dredge can occupy, mathmatically.

The second force keeping Dredge at or below 10% of the metagame is card pool accessibility.   Bazaar of Baghdad is an exceptionally rare and difficult card to acquire.  There are more Black Lotuses in existence than Bazaars, by far.   People are probably more likely to own power than Bazaars, and certainly more likely to be able to assemble a Tezzeret or Oath deck, let alone Fish.

A related, and third, force is the desire to play with cards you own.  Even in proxy environments, fully powered or partially powered players are probably -- as a general rule -- more interested in playing with their power than not.   If more people own power than Bazaars, that's a factor that will reduce the amount of Dredge in the field.

A fourth force is the fear over the hyper linearity of the deck.   While I know that Dredge is really a very interactive deck, in the sense that post-board games are a pitched battle, many players probably fear playing a deck against dedicated hate, and prefer more flexible answers like Force of Will decks.  

A fifth and related force keeping Dredge to a more modest proportion of the field is the availability and quantity of Dredge hate.   While Dredge is a great deck, it can actually just lose to a deck with a sufficient amount of hate post-board, and that loss will matter in the elimination rounds of a tournament.  PLayers who want to win tournaments may not feel comfortable playing a deck with such features.  I acknowledge that this is largely true of most decks, but there may be a perception that it's more true in the case of Dredge.  

A sixth force keeping Dredge in check is experience/mastery.   While a player may be able to assemble the Dredge deck, they may not have the experience necessary to successfully and optimally combat hate.   Whereas, they may have plenty of experience with another archetype.  Observing Dredge masters winning is not sufficient here because people may not believe that they are capable of doing the same.   Experience is and has always been a real barrier to entry.    Having a great deck is of little value if you don't feel confident in your ability to execute.

2) Why does its performance seem to be localized into certain areas (Manila, Philly, NY)?

I suspect this is largely perception, and that it's performance is not as localized as you may think.   Rather, there may be particular areas where Dredge is not either present or played well, but that doesn't mean it's largely localized.  

[voltron00x]

Isn't this:

it's almost impossible for anything to be much more than 20% of the field.   There are simply too many options for a such deck to take up such metagame space.  

directly at odds with a lot of your metagame reports?

Isn't this:

The second force keeping Dredge at or below 10% of the metagame is card pool accessibility.  

kind of absurd given proxies and the material cost of Dredge relative to other decks in non-proxy environments?  

Confused on this one:  

There are more Black Lotuses in existence than Bazaars, by far.

This statement suggests Bazaars are harder to find than Black Lotus.  Do you believe there are people with the material means to acquire 4 Bazaar (which is a cost similar to a Lotus) but cannot because they literally can't find any?  Otherwise isn't scarcity a non-factor here?  And this only affects non-Proxy, which is maybe... 3% of US tournaments? If I have $750 is it really harder to acquire 4 Bazaar than 1 Lotus, in your opinion? 

A fourth force is the fear over the hyper linearity of the deck.  

Agree 100%.

A fifth and related force keeping Dredge to a more modest proportion of the field is the availability and quantity of Dredge hate.

In this statement, what do you mean by availability?  Is Dredge hate more "available" in a proxy environment than Shop hate?  Storm hate?  Given the fact that Dredge continues to win, do you think this is more of an incorrect assessment by players rather than a true statement?  I agree that fear of hate is a perception and a force suppressing the deck, but the fact that it keeps winning suggests that people are incorrect to avoid the deck for that reason.

A sixth force keeping Dredge in check is experience/mastery.  

 Strongly agree - and I would go a step further.  There is a strong belief among players that there IS no degree of experience / mastery with the deck.

I suspect this is largely perception, and that it's performance is not as localized as you may think.   Rather, there may be particular areas where Dredge is not either present or played well, but that doesn't mean it's largely localized.  

 I agree.  I think most of the places where it isn't winning... it isn't being played.

We largely agree on the ones that count, I think.  People overemphasize the amount of hate and the degree to which hate will beat them, and they underemphasize the influence of familiarity, play skill, and deck design with regards to results and Vintage Dredge. 

In addition - I think there's still three stigmas related to dredge.  1) its a budget deck 2) its a "bad player" deck. 3) Its a deck that makes top 8 but doesn't win.

3) has been proven incorrect at this point.  1) is more or less correct in a proxy environment in particular, but that shouldn't have a negative connotation.  2) seems to be changing, slowly, over time.

[meadbert]

In game theory strategies should be followed in the inverse proportion to how easily they are hated on.


I have used this example before, but it still applies here.

Consider a football offense than can run or pass.
The defense can hate on run or hate on pass.

Passing on average nets either 23 yards or 5 yards depending on if it is hated on.
Running on average nets either 6 or 4 yards depending on if it is hated on.

What should the offense do?

At first glance, passing is obviously the superior option since 23 and 5 are so much higher than 6 and 4, thus one might quickly conclude that they should usually pass.
This is wrong.  Because hating on pass decreases passing yardage by 18, but hating on run only decreases running by 2, the defense should almost always hate on pass.
In fact the defense should hate on pass about 95% of the time.
Meanwhile because the defense is hating on pass so often, the offense is better off just running 90% of the time.

I think this explains Dredge.  Basically the hate cards for Dredge are very hateful.  Dredge's line of attack almost always flows through the graveyard so hating on that one resource really stop them.  Meanwhile something like Voltron Oath has Oath of Druids by default, but if Orchard is hated on or if Meddling Mage names Oath, it can go Vault/Key or if Chalice@2 hits or if the opponent has Nature's Claim there is Always Tinker->Sphinx.

The result is no one card hates all lines of Elephant Oath's play, but cards that stop the yard just stop Dredge till Dredge can answer them.

This leaves Dredge more similar to "passing" in the above example.  Basically you can crush anyone who does not hate on you.
Other more conventional decks like Tez and Oath are similar to running.  They are good if they are not hated on, but still solid even if they do get hated on.

I am not sure why Dredge tends to be localized, but it is worth noting that this is not unique to Dredge.  At the last BOM event they posted a breakdown of which countries brought which decks and there was huge variation by country.  Game theory does not predict this, so it is more likely an artifact of player preference.

The number of hate cards mostly depends on how many bad cards you have to begin with.  In general Duress effects and counters are bad against Dredge so some number of those should come out.  There is a self limiting effect here.  Basically once you have your first piece of hate a counter is as good as a second piece, but running something like 4 hates and 8 counters does not work because you are too likely to have 0 hate and 2 counters which is just terrible.  Running 8 hate and 4 counters is fine since you usually have hate so your counters are almost as good as additional hate.

At 30% decks would start packing token Planar Voids into their main decks.
At 50% decks would start running maindeck Leylines and Dredge would have to essentially change their main deck to look more like their post board lists do now.

In order for Dredge to become 50% of the metagame it would require a viable strategy post board that does not use the graveyard.  This is difficult to do with only 15 cards.

Printing more hate cards is unlikely to reduce Dredge down to nothing.  In order for Dredge to stop being viable there would either have to be a more broken deck in game 1 (Something like Flash) or hate would need to be printed that is good against Dredge and good in everything else.  Maybe a better version of Relic.

[Smmenen]

Isn't this:

it's almost impossible for anything to be much more than 20% of the field.   There are simply too many options for a such deck to take up such metagame space.  

directly at odds with a lot of your metagame reports?

I don't think so.   Since the restriction of Thirst, only one deck has ever been more than 20% of Top 8s, and only slightly above, and that was Tezzeret. 



It's really, really hard for a deck to make up more than 20% of Top 8s.   In fact, unrestricted 4 Thirst Tezzeret never reached more than 26% of Top 8s:



And that was even more dominant than 4 Gush Grow in the 2007-8 metagame.

Because of that, I couldn't possibly imagine how Dredge could become a greater part of the field than Tez was in 2009.   It's really hard for a deck to make up that much of the field in a diverse metagame.

Isn't this:

The second force keeping Dredge at or below 10% of the metagame is card pool accessibility.  

kind of absurd given proxies and the material cost of Dredge relative to other decks in non-proxy environments?  

Confused on this one:  

There are more Black Lotuses in existence than Bazaars, by far.

This statement suggests Bazaars are harder to find than Black Lotus.  Do you believe there are people with the material means to acquire 4 Bazaar (which is a cost similar to a Lotus) but cannot because they literally can't find any? 

The demand for a card is not just a function of price, but also utility.    In general, I think most players would find the utility from a Black Lotus to be greater than Bazaars because of its more general use.   For that reason, most Vintage players, I would expect, probably would want to own Lotus before Bazaars. 

Otherwise isn't scarcity a non-factor here?  And this only affects non-Proxy, which is maybe... 3% of US tournaments? If I have $750 is it really harder to acquire 4 Bazaar than 1 Lotus, in your opinion? 

Again, people in Vintage don't just acquire cards for a particular deck use, but for format use.   Lotus is more useful in the format than Bazaars.

A fourth force is the fear over the hyper linearity of the deck.  

Agree 100%.

A fifth and related force keeping Dredge to a more modest proportion of the field is the availability and quantity of Dredge hate.

In this statement, what do you mean by availability?  Is Dredge hate more "available" in a proxy environment than Shop hate?

Possibly.   Some strategies are more susceptible to silver bullets than others.    Back in the day, some strategies just died to Moat.   Dredge is highly susceptible to being stopped by a silver bullet.  That doesn't mean that those bullets don't have answers.   I suspect, although wouldn't attempt to prove, that Dredge has more silver bullets than other decks.   Shop hate is prevalent, but it isn't a silver bullet.  You can Rack and Ruin two artifacts, but the Shop player can still do things beyond try to dig for an answer. 

 Storm hate?  Given the fact that Dredge continues to win, do you think this is more of an incorrect assessment by players rather than a true statement?  I agree that fear of hate is a perception and a force suppressing the deck, but the fact that it keeps winning suggests that people are incorrect to avoid the deck for that reason.

I think it goes both ways.   Dredge players who know how to beat hate, can do so.  But players who run hate are often unexperienced/unprepared for actually fighting it out post board, assuming that just plopping down the hate is enough.   The more experience non-dredge players get at protecting their hate against experienced Dredge pilots, there will be a balancing feedback loop.

[voltron00x]

I think you changed the field of battle slightly on the Lotus comments, but I agree with what you said.  Stated that way, it makes sense and I agree.

Similarly, saying "only one deck" has been over 20% is slightly misleading only in that said deck achieved 20%+ in three of the last five of these charts, which suggests it is actually probable that one deck breaks 20% and not "rare" as you stated; however looking at the field of decks, it is rare that any specific deck cracks 20% in that only one (Tezz) has done so, although I believe others have gotten close (and maybe Fish hit it once?).  With that clarification, I agree with that as well.

I am going to pick a tournament this year, hopefully a big one, and jam the field with Dredge decks (like, 30% plus) just to see what happens.  It will be a pretty awesome thing to behold.
 

[Demonic Attorney]

Not to get overly LOOK AT ME LOOK HOW SMART I AM, but I think Dredge's pattern of performance, at least in my region, follows a dialectical model. 

Dredge shows up in moderate numbers.  People are prepared for it, to varying degrees.  Over the course of the event, Dredge runs into someone who's exceptionally well-prepared and loses. 

Over the next few months, other archetypes jockey for position and a new spin on an existing deck comes to prominence.  People skimp on Dredge hate in favor of gunning for the next big thing.  Observant players notice this.  Someone shows up at a tournament with Dredge and fares well.

People remember Dredge exists and overcompensate with a lot of hate.  Dredge gets pushed back to its original numbers and the cycle continues.


I acknowledge Dredge seems to perform more regularly in other regions, without the fluctuations I adverted to above.  Maybe that makes New England an aberrant metagame.  Maybe New York and Philly are the aberrations.  It's tough to say.  I think a lot of it has to do with who represents the archetype in each region.  I understand that there are talented players in NY/PA who are committed Dredge players.  In large part, I don't think that's true in New England.  There is usually not anybody sticking with the archetype, updating it for changes in the metagame, and mastering the deck's intricacies.  Maybe that has something to do with it.

At what point would I pack 8 hate cards for Dredge?  Probably when either 1) I expected Dredge to constitute more than 15% of the field, and while Dredge's performance in the metagame was on an upswing, or 2) when Dredge hate is available that overlaps with other decks, i.e. Pithing Needle vs. Bomberman.

At what point would I pack 10 hate cards?  I can't even imagine.  I don't think that will ever become necessary, barring some format-shifting change to the B/R list or printing of a new card that strengthens Dredge.  I don't expect either of these things will ever happen.  Before Dredge ever attains a share of the metagame on the order of the ones you included in your question, I think the dialectical process I opened my answer with would cut the deck back down to size.  Hegel would be proud.  hon.  Ok, that was possibly the worst philosophy joke ever.