Updating Draw7 6.15.04

[XellossMetallium]

back to other possible win conditions discussion, in the deck i'm using i have underworld dreams as an alternate win condition. the deck can generate black mana easily enough with rituals. Though this slightly hinders the quick win the deck is capable of making but it sets up a clock and discurages an opponent from using draw spells slightly.

alot of the time i get out turn 1 UD and go off with draw7s turn 2.

  Underworld Dreams
(T1 super secret ninja tech)

[Smmenen]

FYI: I have retracted my opinion of Time Spiral.  Vamp is much better in that slot.

[Unearthly]

The thing with underworld dreams to note is that Diminishing Returns offers an optional draw up to 7 cards, so if it will kill your opponent, I'm guessing he wouldn't draw off that draw 7.

[oberon]

Here's an absurd, off-the wall suggestion...

As long as these are kosher, has any thought been given to meditate? Comparing it to Diminishing Returns:

Diminishing Returns gets you 7 cards. Meditate gets you 4. Seven is, in fact, more than 4.

Diminishing Returns can remove your win conditions from the game. Meditate can cost you a turn.

Diminishing returns costs 4 mana, including 2 blue. Meditate costs 3, including only one blue.

Diminishing returns forces you to discard your current hand. Meditate does not.

Diminishing returns forces your opponent to discard their current hand, but also gives them 7 fresh cards. Meditate does neither of these things.

Is meditate worth considering for the deck?

--oberon

[Windfall]

You forgot one thing: If you Brainstorm into a Meditate, it's not very good, as you see only 2 new cards.  Diminishing Returns gives you seven fresh cards.

It's an interesting idea, and I encourage you to try running Meditate.  Let us know how it works.  At first thought, I would think that they are even riskier than D.R, as losing a turn is basically losing the game for this deck.  Combo has strength in its ability to win before a deck can develop.  Skipping a turn gives your opponent a lot of time to do things that will stop you from comboing.  It not only gives them a chance to tap out to play whatever they want, it gives them another card and another land drop.  Bad times for Draw7.

I'll be posting a primer on Draw7 in the Type 1 forum soon.  I have to test a few more things before I actually post anything.

     ~Mark B.

[Unearthly]

And not only 7 fresh ones, but it also shuffles your graveyard back into your library which is very helpful.  I recall someone doing the percentage that you would lose both tendrils after each Diminishing Returns you cast, I forget the exact number but it was very small.  I don't think that, if any reason, would be a major concern of the deck.

[oberon]

And not only 7 fresh ones, but it also shuffles your graveyard back into your library which is very helpful.  I recall someone doing the percentage that you would lose both tendrils after each Diminishing Returns you cast, I forget the exact number but it was very small.  I don't think that, if any reason, would be a major concern of the deck.

The average is pretty easy to calculate -- with two tendrils in the deck there's about a 1/30 chance each card is a tendrils (this is assuming you haven't actually drawn any cards, but the percentage won't change all that much). Removing ten cards means that, on average, you'll remove a third of a tendrils.

I certainly don't think that the possibility of removing your win condition is a good reason to avoid diminishing returns. In fact, I'd advocate playing the card even if a previous casting had already removed one of your tendrils -- the odds are on your side. I mentioned many of the things above for completeness more than for actual relevance.

--oberon

[goober]

The main problem with Meditate is that you usually need 7 to go off again.  An average hand is 1 BS/FoW, 3 acceleration, 1 Draw7, 2 Land.  Thats not always the case, but that is a decent breakdown.  You usually need all 7 components to be able to safely keep going until you hit a win condition (Will, Bargin, Desire, Tendrils).  Getting 4 will make you stop often, and then the extra turn will cost you BIG.  Remember, this deck is either racing Drain mana or it's opponent comboing off.  If you Diminish and fizzle, oh well, next turn you are all set up to go off even better.  With this if you fizzle next turn you will be facing Drain+FoW+ReB(game2/3) or you will just have been comboed out on.  Either way you beat aggro, but Meditate gives them a lot better shot.

The possibly of losing the turn is far worse than the 10 cards.  After the second Diminishing, assuming no FoW and ESG insanity, the percent of removing both Tendrils is around 6%, or so I am told.   Think of it this way, for U you draw 3, which I hear is decent.

EDIT: I didn't see your new post.  I don't think it is actually just 1/30 time 10, I may not remember too much from Stat, but I am pretty sure it involves different calculations, which make the number smaller.

[oberon]

EDIT: I didn't see your new post.  I don't think it is actually just 1/30 time 10, I may not remember too much from Stat, but I am pretty sure it involves different calculations, which make the number smaller.

1/30 * 10 = 1/3 is the average number of Tendrils removed, not the chance of removing a tendrils. You'll hit a tendrils a bit under 29% of the time ( 1 - 29/30 ^ 10 ). A perhaps more useful statistic is that you'll remove no tendrils whatsoever a little over 71% of the time.

--oberon

[cssamerican]

I am one of these people that believe when I sit across from a player of equal skill that is playing a good deck my odds of winning are 50%. Granted this is not always the case, some decks do have highly favorable or unfavorable match-ups, but on average I would say this is true. If it isn't then get ready for the DCI to come in and destroy your deck. So this brings me to my point. I notice some people are paranoid about losing their win conditions, so to ease you mind lets look at the worst possible scenario. (Note: This scenario will never happen)

You have only one win condition left in your deck and you only have twenty cards between your hand, library, and graveyard. You then cast a Diminishing Returns, now you have a 50% chance of winning or losing the game. That is about what you odds where before you ever set down and started playing the game. Granted this is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but your odds of losing the game doesn't even increase above which they were in the beginning game anyway. Moral of the story, you are going to lose many more games to bad match-ups, opponents going broken, and play mistakes than you will to win conditions being removed.

[VGB]

Moral of the story, you are going to lose many more games to bad match-ups, opponents going broken, and play mistakes than you will to win conditions being removed.

Except that the best decks work to eliminate/minimize variables that are under your control, such as bad match-ups and your win condition being self-neutered.

[cssamerican]

Except that the best decks work to eliminate/minimize variables that are under your control, such as bad match-ups and your win condition being self-neutered.

My previous post was trying to stress the fact that you will lose the vast majority of your games to some other factor, other than the loss of win conditions. While your assessment of what a deck should attempt to accomplish is true, all decks I have seen always have some type of Achilles Heel, and Draw 7 is no exception. Lets list a few shall we Null Rod, Chalice of the Void, Arcane Laboratory, True Believer, Ivory Mask, removing its own win condition, and counter magic in general. Now some of these I have listed are highly unlikely, such as True Believer, therefor you do not need to be really prepared for them. (I am pretty sure everyone would agree with that line of logic) Now to the point, removing both your win conditions is highly unlikely; therefor, you don not need to prepare for it. By preparing for a phantom threat all you have done is weaken the deck when such a threat does not occur, and in this case that threat (Removal of win conditions) would rarely occur.

[oberon]

I am one of these people that believe when I sit across from a player of equal skill that is playing a good deck my odds of winning are 50%. Granted this is not always the case, some decks do have highly favorable or unfavorable match-ups, but on average I would say this is true. If it isn't then get ready for the DCI to come in and destroy your deck. So this brings me to my point. I notice some people are paranoid about losing their win conditions, so to ease you mind lets look at the worst possible scenario. (Note: This scenario will never happen)

You have only one win condition left in your deck and you only have twenty cards between your hand, library, and graveyard. You then cast a Diminishing Returns, now you have a 50% chance of winning or losing the game. That is about what you odds where before you ever set down and started playing the game. Granted this is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but your odds of losing the game doesn't even increase above which they were in the beginning game anyway. Moral of the story, you are going to lose many more games to bad match-ups, opponents going broken, and play mistakes than you will to win conditions being removed.

There are really two things this post makes me want to say --

(1) That's a load of etc.! The fact is that, if you've gone through 40 cards from your deck and are casting a draw7, your odds of winning should NOT be 50%, they should 95%. The example is flawed, the analogy is flawed, and the whole idea is irrelevant.

(2) The last series of posts seems to be a group of people (myself included, sadly) arguiging with no one. There is no one here arguing that the potential to remove one's win conditions is a good reason not to play Diminishing Returns! My first post was a comparison of DR and Meditate which I tried to make as thorough as possible, including listing their drawbacks. I think it's pretty clear that Meditate carries the more severe drawback. So, given that, the question remains:

Is Meditate a useful card for Draw7?

One further note: while I compared Meditate to DR in my first post, it was not because I felt they should be a 1 for 1 replacement. I used DR simply because I felt it was the most similar card already in the deck. Assuming meditate is useful at all, the card(s) to cut for it must still be considered.

--oberon

[VGB]

(2) The last series of posts seems to be a group of people (myself included, sadly) arguiging with no one.

How astute of you.  I guess no one should ever post unless they want to argue with someone, then.

Is Meditate a useful card for Draw7?

Conclusively, no.  This deck is 1/2 mana, thus the probability of drawing a non-business clump is very high - especially the fewer cards you draw.  DR is 1 mana more and gets you 3 more cards.  If Meditate drew 6 or 7 cards, it would be a no-brainer to include it, but at 4 or even 5 it doesn't cut it when DR already fits the bill.

I tested Meditate in Long a year ago, and found it unreliable.

[cssamerican]

(1) That's a load of etc.! The fact is that, if you've gone through 40 cards from your deck and are casting a draw7, your odds of winning should NOT be 50%, they should 95%. The example is flawed, the analogy is flawed, and the whole idea is irrelevant.

In the example I gave you, you do have a 50% chance of losing because you only have twenty cards and your win condition could be in the ten cards you remove, hence you have no way to win! And the example was given to show the absurdity of focusing on the fact that there is a possible way to lose by removing all your win conditions. Since the odds of that happening are so slim as compared from losing to other factors that it doesn't deserve the attention its getting. Its like saying "This deck can be hosed by Arcane Laboratory" while it can happen; it is irrelevant because of the lack of frequency in which it would occur.

And I only posted that comment because anytime someone post and mentions Diminishing Returns they can't do it without talking about how it "could" remove your win conditions. Which is a drawback that happens with such infrequency that it is irrelevant. In fact, I am actually upset that I even brought attention to it, since all it seemed to do was bring more attention to this miniscule drawback.

[Windfall]

The really bad thing about Diminishing Returns is that you'll remove a handfull of good cards with each use.  Sometimes, You'd rather lose a Tendrils than Lotus, for example.  I am not worried about losing both Tendrils, as it's rare (though it does happen for those of you who say it never does).  I am worried about losing the ability to keep going with the combo because I removed Twister, Will, Lotus, Wheel, Moxes, etc...  This fact means that you usually only cast one Returns in each game, if that.  Thus, the other three become dead cards and I really don't like that.  I think this is the issue we combo players need to work on, rather than bicker with people who have probably never even played combo before.  Let's keep this discussion at the good level it started on.

     ~Mark B.

[JDawg13]

The problem that I see with this situation is that for every time you remove stuff that you don't want to lose (i.e. Lotus, Will, Draw7s), there is a time when you remove stuff that you really wouldn't want to see for the rest of the game (i.e. land, ESGs, Brainstorms, etc.).  Every time I cast the first Diminishing Returns I am 100% confident that regardless of what I remove (barring a disaster of like Tendrils, Will, 4 Draw7s, etc.) I will be in a strong position to either win the game that turn or the turn after.  The first Diminishing has, I would say, a better chance of helping you (or at least not hurting you) than it does of hurting you, so I don't think this is really an issue.  Also, the fact that you don't usually cast the other three is rather irrelevant because you NEED to see a draw7 in your opening hand or you are in a very bad situation.  Diminishing is the best unrestricted draw7 left, so it is 100% necessary that we run all 4, even if it is less than desirable to see another once we start going off.

[Windfall]

For the most part I agree with you, but I have lost games because Returns has removed a lot of good stuff, and I have lost games because I had to Returns a second time or lose, which left me with a whole lot of nothing.  I only brought it up because sometimes it is an issue for the deck.  I usually have no trouble casting the first, though I would still prefer any other draw seven.

Just so you know, I think Brainstorm is one of the best cards in this deck and I hate when I lose more than one to a Diminishing Returns.

The deck doesn't need a draw seven in the opening grip.  Necro is often better, simply because if it resolves, the opponent does not get a new hand that can stop you.  If a first turn draw seven resolves, the opponent probably didn't have a Force, and drawing seven new cards may just get him the counter he needs to stop you from continuing the combo.  Bargain, Desire, and Will all do this as well.

[JDawg13]

Just so you know, I think Brainstorm is one of the best cards in this deck and I hate when I lose more than one to a Diminishing Returns.

While I tend to agree with the fact that Brainstorm is very powerful in the deck, it is quite easy to live without one once you start going off, so I tend not to mind losing one or two to Diminishing.

The deck doesn't need a draw seven in the opening grip.  Necro is often better, simply because if it resolves, the opponent does not get a new hand that can stop you...Bargain, Desire, and Will all do this as well.

Yes, I agree.  I think this much was assumed.  If you resolve a first turn Necro/Bargain/huge Desire, you win.  Period.  I was really just trying to comment on the much more likely occurrence of you not getting first turn "I win" spells.  Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.

[Smmenen]

Ideally, your first draw7 will draw you into one of the I Win Now spells - i.e. Necro, Bargain, or Desire.  Then you don't even have to worry about more Draw7s.

[LotusHead]

Last night I finally got to play my deck (a Salvager combo/control deck) against an unknown opponent who had a nice proxied up T1 deck (rare in Sacramento, CA). I lost the die roll and kept a hand of 5 mana sources and 2 Stifle and just hoped they didn't win first turn.  After I won the first two games, I asked him what deck he was playing (to me, all crazy combo decks look alike, and he said it was Draw7.)

First game: My opponent played a bunch of broken stuff, then played a draw 7, and my new hand had 2 Force of Will and 2 blue cards.  He played a bunch more stuff until he came down to 2 or 3 cards in his hand.  At this point, I simply Forced anything that said "black mana" or "draw 7". Once that was done, I played my deck as best I could.  Every time I got a new set of 7 cards (with graveyard reshuffle) I got a new set of Force of Wills. I didn't see an opposing Force, and my opponent lost 2 Tendril's (out of 3) and a Will after DR. I won.

Game two: See game 1(I finally got to Misdirect an Ancestral Recall to ME!!! and get Force + blue in my new hands to counter new Draw 7! Yay for me!)

Maybe I just got lucky, or my opponent unlucky.  Hopefully this post will give Draw7 players insight as to how others react to this deck and to better deal with other combo/control decks. I read all 8 pages of this thread only after finally facing the deck in real life.

[mogote]

Maybe I just got lucky, or my opponent unlucky.

That's perhaps true. Your opponent should have the same odds of seeing Force of Will as you have. Salvagers.dec can win sometimes as well but that doesn't make it an overall good deck.
I also wonder why you "kept a hand of 5 mana sources and 2 Stifle and just hoped they didn't win first turn" after you lost the die roll. Shouldn't you have mulliganed that hand without a doubt? That's really not a good hand to keep. If you're going second you cannot defend against your opponent. And as you're playing combo yourself you had a hand with no tutors, no card drawing and no hard counters. You can be glad your opponent played a draw7 and not Bargain or Necropotence.

[LotusHead]

I'm keeping this in PM because it has little to do with Draw7.
Edit-Okay, I THOUGHT this was PM'd. Oh well, the the TMD, enjoy.

I kept my hand because I had faith in my deck IF I didn't lose turn one.

I figured that if their win condition was Tendrils, then I could Stifle it. If their lock condition was Trinisphere, I'm screwed.  It turns out, it didn't matter, but it was game one against an unknown opponent.  If you've followed the Newbie Forum Slavager threads (and I admit, my build is weaker than AngryPheldagrif's) then you would see that as long as I didn't get just MORE mana, I could play my deck and possibly win. I was banking on them not winning first turn.

I never saw a FOW on his side.  I don't know if he simply didn't run them or if he was truly unlucky.  The stuff he did was broken, but that deck as only broken cards in it.  He didn't feel like playing another match (why, I don't know, so I only have the two games to go by.)