[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays --The Battle for the Best Deck in History

[meadbert]

Those are excellent questions and I do not know the answers.  I think that Ideally 7-8 DSCs and Progenitus would be used in total if possible.
A question is was Progenitus tournament legal before the rules changed and I need to determine when the rules changed first.
Do you know a good resource for this?

[Smmenen]

Every time a new set comes out Mark Gottlieb announces all rules changes, including errata.    You should look through his archive on MTG.com. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

I think that Ideally 7-8 DSCs and Progenitus would be used in total if possible.

There's also Legacy Weapon.  Am I correct in saying that you could chain dredges, effectively allowing you to deck yourself by replacing a single draw?

[meadbert]

That is my interpretation of the Dredge as originally written and I assume that is why they changed it.  Basically I was reading Dredge one day and noticed the rules change.  Then I wondered why on earth they would make the change and I realized the implication.  No judge has ever verified my decision, but I am pretty sure it is correct based on ruling regarding Life from the Loam and Sylvan Library.

[Smmenen]

Why didn't Dredge pilots in other formats use it, if that were the case?  At Pro Tour Valencia, in 2007, for example? 

[Anusien]

That is my interpretation of the Dredge as originally written and I assume that is why they changed it.  Basically I was reading Dredge one day and noticed the rules change.  Then I wondered why on earth they would make the change and I realized the implication.  No judge has ever verified my decision, but I am pretty sure it is correct based on ruling regarding Life from the Loam and Sylvan Library.

I went through all the rules changes and I can't find any case of Dredge being changed.  Also, I consulted with a rules guru, Eli Shiffrin (who is in part responsible for putting out the Comp Rules).  If there were changes to the Dredge ability to close this sort of loophole, he would likely have known about it and he didn't.

[14:18:34] <Anusien> Hey EliShffrn, can you confirm something for me?
[14:18:45] <EliShffrn> possibly
[14:19:07] <Anusien> "Originally Dredge basically said that you put the top n card of your library into your graveyard.  If you do not then draw a card. What this meant is that if you Dredge a DSC then it did not go to your yard and therefore you actually get to turn a draw into a Dredge + a draw. To deal with this Dredge was errated, but the flavor text on many of the cards still has the old wording."
[14:19:10] <Anusien> Did Dredge ever work that way?
[14:19:34] <EliShffrn> I dunno
[14:19:56] <EliShffrn> but do any cards really have the wrong reminder text? seems wrong
[14:20:15] <Anusien> seems unlikely
[14:20:15] <EliShffrn> I probably would have gotten questions about it by now
[14:20:26] <Anusien> Dredge 4 (If you would draw a card, instead you may put exactly four cards from the top of your library into your graveyard. If you do, return this card from your graveyard to your hand. Otherwise, draw a card.)
[14:20:32] <Anusien> !define dredge
[14:20:32] <Datatog> Dredge: A keyword ability that lets a player return a card from his or her graveyard to his or her hand. See rule 702.49, "Dredge."
[14:20:33] <Datatog> 702.49a. Dredge is a static ability that functions only while the card with dredge is in a player's graveyard. "Dredge N" means "As long as you have at least N cards in your library, if you would draw a card, you may instead put N cards from the top of your library into your graveyard and return this card from your graveyard to your hand."
[14:20:55] <Anusien> DOes not have the "if you do" for wahtever that means
[14:21:50] <EliShffrn> All of the reminder text says "if you do", and it doesn't matter - the "if you do" is "if you make the choice to do so," not "if you do physically move dem cards"
[14:23:08] <EliShffrn> well, "if you make the choice to do so and take that action as modified by any other replacement effects"

I'm calling this myth busted.

[meadbert]

That is my interpretation of the Dredge as originally written and I assume that is why they changed it.  Basically I was reading Dredge one day and noticed the rules change.  Then I wondered why on earth they would make the change and I realized the implication.  No judge has ever verified my decision, but I am pretty sure it is correct based on ruling regarding Life from the Loam and Sylvan Library.

I went through all the rules changes and I can't find any case of Dredge being changed.  Also, I consulted with a rules guru, Eli Shiffrin (who is in part responsible for putting out the Comp Rules).  If there were changes to the Dredge ability to close this sort of loophole, he would likely have known about it and he didn't.

[14:18:34] <Anusien> Hey EliShffrn, can you confirm something for me?
[14:18:45] <EliShffrn> possibly
[14:19:07] <Anusien> "Originally Dredge basically said that you put the top n card of your library into your graveyard.  If you do not then draw a card. What this meant is that if you Dredge a DSC then it did not go to your yard and therefore you actually get to turn a draw into a Dredge + a draw. To deal with this Dredge was errated, but the flavor text on many of the cards still has the old wording."
[14:19:10] <Anusien> Did Dredge ever work that way?
[14:19:34] <EliShffrn> I dunno
[14:19:56] <EliShffrn> but do any cards really have the wrong reminder text? seems wrong
[14:20:15] <Anusien> seems unlikely
[14:20:15] <EliShffrn> I probably would have gotten questions about it by now
[14:20:26] <Anusien> Dredge 4 (If you would draw a card, instead you may put exactly four cards from the top of your library into your graveyard. If you do, return this card from your graveyard to your hand. Otherwise, draw a card.)
[14:20:32] <Anusien> !define dredge
[14:20:32] <Datatog> Dredge: A keyword ability that lets a player return a card from his or her graveyard to his or her hand. See rule 702.49, "Dredge."
[14:20:33] <Datatog> 702.49a. Dredge is a static ability that functions only while the card with dredge is in a player's graveyard. "Dredge N" means "As long as you have at least N cards in your library, if you would draw a card, you may instead put N cards from the top of your library into your graveyard and return this card from your graveyard to your hand."
[14:20:55] <Anusien> DOes not have the "if you do" for wahtever that means
[14:21:50] <EliShffrn> All of the reminder text says "if you do", and it doesn't matter - the "if you do" is "if you make the choice to do so," not "if you do physically move dem cards"
[14:23:08] <EliShffrn> well, "if you make the choice to do so and take that action as modified by any other replacement effects"

I'm calling this myth busted.

So are you claiming that the reminder text for dredge was different from the actual rule at the outset?

[Anusien]

Yes.  Remainder text is a simplification of the rules text because the rules text is too long to fit on the card.  Also if the reminder text were wrong they would often times errata the reminder text, and this hasn't happened either.  If you go look at the Comp Rules wording on Dredge from when Ravnica came out and the way it is now, you'll see it's exactly the same.

http://yawgatog.com/resources/rules-changes/9ed-rav/

502.47a.

Dredge is a static ability that functions only while the card with dredge is in a player's graveyard. "Dredge N" means "As long as you have at least N cards in your library, if you would draw a card, you may instead put N cards from the top of your library into your graveyard and return this card from your graveyard to your hand."

The current comp rules:

702.49a.

Dredge is a static ability that functions only while the card with dredge is in a player's graveyard. "Dredge N" means "As long as you have at least N cards in your library, if you would draw a card, you may instead put N cards from the top of your library into your graveyard and return this card from your graveyard to your hand."

[meadbert]

Myth = debunked.

So are there any suggestions for:

A Trinisphere Shop Aggro list.
A Trinisphere Uba Stax list (I am talking to you Vroman)
A Tyrant Oath list
A Control Slaver list (I think a board with Resistors, Wastelands, Blasts and Crypts might work)
A Gush/Painter list.

Also I am torn over what dredge list to test.  Fatestitcher dredge is more inherently broken, but Old School Manaless Dredge with Unmask, Chalice, Leyline and 10 enchantment removal spells post board would probably do better since the fast disruption is great against Flash and Long, Leylines are good in the mirror and then Enchantmant removal is good against Oath.
Although Fatestitcher Dredge is more broken on its own, the older version might actually be better against the most broken decks.

[zeus-online]

I'm not sure if that stax list was really the best possible one for this meta...Also i'm surprised that Gifts didn't win more, alot of the hands seemed incredible bad considering the overall quality of hands i received when i played the deck. (The hands seemed quite swingy, from incredible to way worse then anything i've ever got playing the deck)

It's a pretty small sample though, which could explain some of these things.

[LotusHead]

Even so, why would dredge run even 1 DSC? Tinker?

[meadbert]

Dredge runs a token DSC to crush Painter/Grindstone.  It shuffles back and their Grindstone basically Dredged your whole library for you.

[serracollector]

Nice article, but one thing I noticed.....

Maindeck:

Artifacts
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sensei's Divining Top

Creatures
1 Body Double
1 Body Snatcher
1 Carrion Feeder
1 Elvish Spirit Guide
1 Mogg Fanatic
4 Protean Hulk
1 Reveillark

Instants
4 Brainstorm
1 Chain Of Vapor
4 Force Of Will
1 Mystical Tutor
4 Pact Of Negation
3 Summoner's Pact
1 Vampiric Tutor
 

Sorceries
1 Demonic Tutor
4 Merchant Scroll
1 Ponder
1 Thoughtseize

Basic Lands
4 Island

Lands
3 Flooded Strand
3 Polluted Delta
3 Underground Sea
 
Sideboard:
2 Tormod's Crypt
1 Darksteel Colossus
1 Chain Of Vapor
1 Echoing Truth
2 Extirpate
1 Rebuild
2 Duress
1 Thoughtseize
1 Timetwister
1 Tinker
2 Boseiju, Who Shelters All


How did the FLASH deck work with no Flashes????    lol.
 

[madmanmike25]

I'm willing to bet the missing 5 cards are 1x Ancestral Recall and 4x Flash.  Thats only an educated guess however.

[TheShop]

After reading the article, these decks all being legal looks like a VERY exciting format to play.  I guess that several of the decks would have been better had all of the cards that were unrestricted in a given deck been unrestricted for all decks.  But I still think that this article begs the general question:

Would Type 1 be better if these decks were all legal?

for my purposes, the subjective "better" is defined as-
1)  more diverse
2)  decks are more powerful
3)  more innovation possible (better and more diverse card pool)

Your report makes the "broken" format look more diverse and interesting than the current format at first glance.  Also, I have always been a proponent of legalizing several extremely powerful decks so that the entire metagame shifts to a more powerful standard (and a single powerful deck is less dominant).

Another (far more subjective) question:  Would the average game be too short if all these decks were legal at once?

[AmbivalentDuck]

One missing suggestion for the abstractly "most powerful" deck ever:

40 cards, no 4 card limits:

13 Black Lotus
12 Timetwister
4 Ancestral Recall
6 Island
4 Twiddle (mvp since you can shut down spheres and chalice.  Remember that under beta rules, tapped artifacts are "off.")
1 Lightning Bolt (requires more than 1 MisD to ruin your day)

The sb is probably a bunch of Volcanic Islands, Twiddles, and REBs.

[honestabe]

After reading the article, these decks all being legal looks like a VERY exciting format to play.  I guess that several of the decks would have been better had all of the cards that were unrestricted in a given deck been unrestricted for all decks.  But I still think that this article begs the general question:

Would Type 1 be better if these decks were all legal?

for my purposes, the subjective "better" is defined as-
1)  more diverse
2)  decks are more powerful
3)  more innovation possible (better and more diverse card pool)

Your report makes the "broken" format look more diverse and interesting than the current format at first glance.  Also, I have always been a proponent of legalizing several extremely powerful decks so that the entire metagame shifts to a more powerful standard (and a single powerful deck is less dominant).

Another (far more subjective) question:  Would the average game be too short if all these decks were legal at once?

Took the words right out of my mouth.  I would like to see this testing continued by someone, and possibly presented to the DCI, perhaps to influence the upcoming restrictions/unrestrictions.

I really feel if every deck is crazy good, they will all be on the same level, and that vintage would benefit from this

[LordHomerCat]

After reading the article, these decks all being legal looks like a VERY exciting format to play.  I guess that several of the decks would have been better had all of the cards that were unrestricted in a given deck been unrestricted for all decks.  But I still think that this article begs the general question:

Would Type 1 be better if these decks were all legal?

for my purposes, the subjective "better" is defined as-
1)  more diverse
2)  decks are more powerful
3)  more innovation possible (better and more diverse card pool)

Your report makes the "broken" format look more diverse and interesting than the current format at first glance.  Also, I have always been a proponent of legalizing several extremely powerful decks so that the entire metagame shifts to a more powerful standard (and a single powerful deck is less dominant).

Another (far more subjective) question:  Would the average game be too short if all these decks were legal at once?

Took the words right out of my mouth.  I would like to see this testing continued by someone, and possibly presented to the DCI, perhaps to influence the upcoming restrictions/unrestrictions.

I really feel if every deck is crazy good, they will all be on the same level, and that vintage would benefit from this

The thing is, what makes you think they are on the same level?  I mean, there has (almost? I can't think of a time) never been an era in vintage with multiple Best Decks.  The GAT era was close, but the best deck(s) were all basically the same deck with 7 different kill condition cards.  One of these decks will turn out to be way more powerful than the rest, and will dominate just as it did when it was legal.  The chances that somehow Gifts, GAT, Long, and Trinistax all somehow will be on an equal power curve is pretty naive.

[AmbivalentDuck]

The chances that somehow Gifts, GAT, Long, and Trinistax all somehow will be on an equal power curve is pretty naive.

I disagree: a die-roll meta is fairly balanced.  If every deck can consistently exclude the others from doing anything meaningful on the draw, it doesn't matter if one happens to be abstractly "more broken" while doing it.

Also, there's probably a blue prison deck that's viable in a meta where going off turn 1 is necessary.  Think Shaymora with artifact hate in place of Meditates and some Mindbreak Traps.

[Purple Hat]

going off turn 1 is never gonna be necessary.  It's just not possible to build a deck that does it consistently enough to make that a reality in a competitive field.

This type of thing is cool, but if we were to unrestrict the cards in these decks I doubt the meta would look anything like the one Steve is describing.  For example, with infernal tutor and grim tutor around would you still play burning wish in Long?  the decks are cool and fun, but few of them would make it into the meta in their current form.

[AmbivalentDuck]

going off turn 1 is never gonna be necessary.  It's just not possible to build a deck that does it consistently enough to make that a reality in a competitive field.

I think my example from beta-era magic is sufficient to refute that.  Breaking the 4 card restriction makes it very possible to build a deck that's 1/3 lotuses and explodes turn 1.

[TheShop]

I don't think without testing it anyone can say which will be the "best" deck in a format like that.  However, I do know that if a single deck in that format had as little as a 4% better chance to beat the other decks...every vintage pilot worth his stuff would play it.  That is what would make the single deck dominant from a tournament results standpoint.  The fact that every deck had a legitimate shot at the top would be irrelevant if all we were looking at was the top 8 %'s.

I think that if this high a power level was all legal, the disruption would be nearly as good as the combo.  Some of the tourney reports I read from the recent Gush era showed 15-20 turn games of top-decking before a victory.  The fact that the decks had a high chance to win in the first few turns when left unmolested did not matter when the disruption was so strong.  Look at Painter.dec-5 REBs competing with 4x Gush.

Scenario:  I played Flash vs. Lorwyn block white weenie at a Vintage tourney during that era.  When the guy played a first turn, white bordered plains....I won the game 1/2 a turn later (consistently).

Scenario2:  In the same tourney, I played against Tyrant Oath, a Flash Build, and that weird Platinum control deck Owen created.  Short games were very rare.  Tempo was a HUGE deal.  The fact that multiple, high-powered decks were playing against each other leveled the playing field even if one was probably better than the others (not all builds were standard).

The point:  One deck being far better than the other is not nearly as fun as multiple powerful decks battling it out.  Whether or not this is achievable in a format resembling the situation Steve played out is what is really up for debate.

[Rico Suave]

I don't know why so many people are talking about "powerful decks battling it out" as if the brokenness of your deck can change the fact you lost the die roll.  Look how many of the games in Steve's testing were determined by the winner of the die roll.  Why would anybody want to play in that kind of environment?

In Vintage we will never be able to escape the fact that the winner of the die roll will have an advantage.  We can, however, curb it so that it's not so much of an overwhelming advantage.  It is why Flash and Trinisphere were restricted. 

[TheJesus]

Zvi taught me about vintage:

Force vs Shop vs Tendrils

The restricted list pushes the power level toward one of the archetypes. Steven's article seems to show that fetch lands and Mirrodin had the biggest impact on Vintage. It's enough to divide vintage into pre and post fetch land eras.

[TheShop]

I don't know why so many people are talking about "powerful decks battling it out" as if the brokenness of your deck can change the fact you lost the die roll.  Look how many of the games in Steve's testing were determined by the winner of the die roll.  Why would anybody want to play in that kind of environment?

In Vintage we will never be able to escape the fact that the winner of the die roll will have an advantage.  We can, however, curb it so that it's not so much of an overwhelming advantage.  It is why Flash and Trinisphere were restricted. 

Every format is effected by the die roll.  Vintage is not particularly special in this respect.  There are ways unrestrict powerful cards and keep this from happening.  For instance, the unrestriction of 4-mana draw spells will not lead to first turn victories.  I would venture to say that a format with FoF/Gifts/Regrowth or other slower/more expensive restricted cards will not make turn-1 advantage obscene.  In a format without time vault...the decks would probably be slower than the current control/combo.  Stopping mana in such a format (the stax effect) would be increasingly powerful.

[MirariKnight]

While I for the most part agree, I still worry that unrestricted Trinisphere would be the biggest problem. I can't imagine that Trini + Shop + Serum Powder wouldn't be absolutely stupid, which really makes going first critically important.

[TheShop]

While I for the most part agree, I still worry that unrestricted Trinisphere would be the biggest problem. I can't imagine that Trini + Shop + Serum Powder wouldn't be absolutely stupid, which really makes going first critically important.

I agree with this.

[Killane]

This.

1st turn Trinisphere is, IMHO, the most unfun and broken thing to play against in all of Vintage. I'd rather play against the orginal Long.dec or unrestricted Flash with 4 Brainstorms any day. Unrestrict plenty of things, but NOT sphere!

[Rico Suave]

Every format is effected by the die roll.  Vintage is not particularly special in this respect.  There are ways unrestrict powerful cards and keep this from happening.  For instance, the unrestriction of 4-mana draw spells will not lead to first turn victories.  I would venture to say that a format with FoF/Gifts/Regrowth or other slower/more expensive restricted cards will not make turn-1 advantage obscene.  In a format without time vault...the decks would probably be slower than the current control/combo.  Stopping mana in such a format (the stax effect) would be increasingly powerful.

There are more reasons than just one to restrict a card.  FoF/Gifts/Regrowth fit into one of those other reasons, though I'm not going to discuss their unrestriction here.  I'm also definitely not going to discuss a format without Time Vault. 

What I will say is that the point still remains for cards like Flash and Trinisphere. 

[median]

I don't know why so many people are talking about "powerful decks battling it out" as if the brokenness of your deck can change the fact you lost the die roll.  Look how many of the games in Steve's testing were determined by the winner of the die roll.  Why would anybody want to play in that kind of environment?

In Vintage we will never be able to escape the fact that the winner of the die roll will have an advantage.  We can, however, curb it so that it's not so much of an overwhelming advantage.  It is why Flash and Trinisphere were restricted

One thing I thought of a long time ago (gush / flash era) that would have been interesting to see in the M10 changes to deal with broken first turns. Would be a rule stating "you can only play mana sources on your first turn."
It didn't happen, but a lot of the tempo in vintage isn't mana related, more it’s about resolving a tutor or card advantage card.
 While it would make Drains better, it would also make stuff like Hymn to Tourach and double Duress better (other stuff too). Kind of wish instead of dealing with specifics (problem cards) they would deal with the problem, the tempo of being on the play vs. draw.
I actually think if they took away that advantage we could all go back to play our favorite decks of old. And probably do terribly.
Needless to say this rule will not likely be implemented. We’ll still no doubt find other fun ways of winning first turn -Or virtually winning by resolving something useful.
Such is vintage.