[Free Article] Is "Vintage Too Fast" or in a Golden Age? SMIP

[Shock Wave]

I suppose by "last tournament" you mean the last "major tournament"? It's been a while, probably 3 years. Again, what is the relevance?

The relevance is that it takes tournament preparation, focus, and recent experience to get a true handle on the format.   Even people with tremendous experience in the format cannot just jump in and get a true sense of it without swimming for a while.

I am not sure what you mean by "get a true handle on the format". Are you suggesting that the only way to understand the state of a format is to play in large events? If so, I will have to disagree there. A player can test against the decks du jour to develop a very comprehensive understanding of how the archetypes function and how the matchups play out. In addition, my position regarding the state of the format has nothing to do with the majority of the archetypes. My only concern is regarding Dredge (and to a lesser degree, Time Vault, and BSC)

I watched the Vintage finals. I watched a match where I saw Paul draw what looked like an unbeatable hand and still lose. To me, that was an example of Dredge's incredible resiliency.

No doubt.  But the fact of the matter is that 1) the match went many, many turns, and 2) the outcome of the game was in doubt until the final turn.

Yup, what you say is all true. The match went many turns, and the outcome of the game was in doubt until the final turn. Those are definitely positive signs for Vintage. What I feel is not positive is the fact that Dredge has an unfair win percentage in the first game against pretty much every archetype, and also, it is incredibly resilient against even the most hateful of hands. The fact that Paul "skimped" on Dredge hate is not particularly relevant, since his opening hand had all the cards he needed and should have been enough to win. A deck that gets a free first game in so many matches should not be able to battle through hate like that. When you add up all the powerful aspects of Dredge, it amounts to criteria that, IMO, illustrate an overpowered archetype.

[honestabe]

I agree with Shockwave.  One of the biggest reasons people have to not wanting to restrict Bazaar is that "Dredge isn't dominant"  

Well no shit it's not, everyone's dedicating HALF of their sideboards to beat it!  Show me a deck that would be dominant if having 6-8 sb cards was considered normal.  The fact almost everyone is running 6-8 sb cards for dredge and that it's still winning tournaments just screams that it's overpowered.  I personally think any reason for keeping Dredge in the format is simply a manifestation of fancy play syndrome.  If you *need* 6-8 cards to even STAND A CHANCE against any deck, than it's just overpowered.

[diopter]

Can Dredge opponents explain why they hold such an outrageous and indefensible position without resorting to "we have to sideboard against it!"?

[Troy_Costisick]

I am not sure what you mean by "get a true handle on the format". Are you suggesting that the only way to understand the state of a format is to play in large events? If so, I will have to disagree there. A player can test against the decks du jour to develop a very comprehensive understanding of how the archetypes function and how the matchups play out.

I don't know if I can agree with this.  We're judging a deck based on its performance in tournaments. Therefore, to truly be able to judge how that deck functions in tournament matchups, one should have first hand experience, preferably very recent experiement.  Otherwise, it seems like you're just naval-gazing or just just using intuition when empirical evidence is what's required.

[honestabe]

Can Dredge opponents explain why they hold such an outrageous and indefensible position without resorting to "we have to sideboard *half of our cards* against it!"?

Fixed that for you

[diopter]

I don't really care that you don't like it that your deck has to find as much as 7 cards out of 75 to position itself favorably against a major player in the metagame.

In fact I find that attitude that you and other Dredge opponents hold about these precious 7 cards to be more troublesome and more damaging to Vintage than Dredge could ever possibly be.

[Smmenen]

I don't really care that you don't like it that your deck has to find as much as 7 cards out of 75 to position itself favorably against a major player in the metagame.

In fact I find that attitude that you and other Dredge opponents hold about these precious 7 cards to be more troublesome and more damaging to Vintage than Dredge could ever possibly be.

I agree.  Don't people thinks it's presumptuous/arrogant to demand to have a favorable matchup based on the quantity of sideboard hate or have the DCI fix it for them?  Some decks should have bad matchups period.  

[honestabe]

I don't really care that you don't like it that your deck has to find as much as 7 cards out of 75 to position itself favorably against a major player in the metagame.

In fact I find that attitude that you and other Dredge opponents hold about these precious 7 cards to be more troublesome and more damaging to Vintage than Dredge could ever possibly be.

 Some decks should have bad matchups period.  

What deck is favored against Dregde?

[serracollector]

Where I take issue -- and what I disagree with -- is your assertion that Vintage has slid into a format where this is the case more often than it was in the recent past.  In fact, all of the available evidence points in the opposite direction.  You  point to cards like Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, and Gush as cards that make the format so.   Rather than making it faster, these cards have made the format slower.  That's why Landstill is winning tournaments.

This right here helps emphasize Steve's point so much.  When I won the Meandeck open last week, it was because with the use of Fluster, Mental Misstep, Force, MB trap, Spell pierce, REB, and for some (not me personally) Mana Drain, and the aforementioned Snapcaster mage, that I was not only able to "keep up" with the broken blue decks, but to actually stay ahead in spells, cards, and thus the game.  

Back in the first times of unrestricted Fact of Fiction, it got restricted due to the "power" of BBS being able to stop everything early on, and then stay far ahead.  I think it is absolutely amazing that we are now playing in a meta where a BBS deck is not the best, but NEITHER is the 15 x tutors, 4 x 1 card win decks either.  IMO this is a very nice meta diversifying between (cards list aside):

Broken Blue
Control Blue
Mud Lock
Dredge Speed
Fish "Luck" ( )
Randomness

Steve I, as most, agree that bazaar should not be restricted, BUT, I also agree that Dredge is a very degenerate deck in the ways it can simply ignore 90% of decks, and goldfish.  This was the same prob as LONG back in the days of  4 LED and 4 Burning Wish.  So, as I do agree that Bazaar SHOULD NOT be restricted, I do think something should be pulled to "nueter" dredge at least to some degree.

IMO, and the best idea's I have heard  are that Bridge from Below, and/or Serum's powder should be restricted.  This would lower the number of first turn bazaar hands, and would also majorly slow down, and change dredges plan and win conditions,(with the restricted of Bridge), but still allow dredge to stay very competitive, with a consistent turn 3 kill, which would keep it on par with the Likes of Gush, Snapcaster, Tinker, and Trinisphere (turn 3 spells etc).  This is ofc just my opinion tho.  DOWN WITH BRIDGE!!!! stupid zombies.....

[cvarosky80]

Where I take issue -- and what I disagree with -- is your assertion that Vintage has slid into a format where this is the case more often than it was in the recent past.  In fact, all of the available evidence points in the opposite direction.  You  point to cards like Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, and Gush as cards that make the format so.   Rather than making it faster, these cards have made the format slower.  That's why Landstill is winning tournaments.

This right here helps emphasize Steve's point so much.  When I won the Meandeck open last week, it was because with the use of Fluster, Mental Misstep, Force, MB trap, Spell pierce, REB, and for some (not me personally) Mana Drain, and the aforementioned Snapcaster mage, that I was not only able to "keep up" with the broken blue decks, but to actually stay ahead in spells, cards, and thus the game. 

Back in the first times of unrestricted Fact of Fiction, it got restricted due to the "power" of BBS being able to stop everything early on, and then stay far ahead.  I think it is absolutely amazing that we are now playing in a meta where a BBS deck is not the best, but NEITHER is the 15 x tutors, 4 x 1 card win decks either.  IMO this is a very nice meta diversifying between (cards list aside):

Broken Blue
Control Blue
Mud Lock
Dredge Speed
Fish "Luck" ( )
Randomness

Steve I, as most, agree that bazaar should not be restricted, BUT, I also agree that Dredge is a very degenerate deck in the ways it can simply ignore 90% of decks, and goldfish.  This was the same prob as LONG back in the days of  4 LED and 4 Burning Wish.  So, as I do agree that Bazaar SHOULD NOT be restricted, I do think something should be pulled to "nueter" dredge at least to some degree.

IMO, and the best idea's I have heard  are that Bridge from Below, and/or Serum's powder should be restricted.  This would lower the number of first turn bazaar hands, and would also majorly slow down, and change dredges plan and win conditions,(with the restricted of Bridge), but still allow dredge to stay very competitive, with a consistent turn 3 kill, which would keep it on par with the Likes of Gush, Snapcaster, Tinker, and Trinisphere (turn 3 spells etc).  This is ofc just my opinion tho.  DOWN WITH BRIDGE!!!! stupid zombies.....

I like the idea of restricting Serum Powder as it does force the Dredge player to have to use good mulligan and hand choice making without totally disrupting the engine of the deck. Restricting Serum Powder is a much more passable and good idea than either Bazaar or Bridge.

I don't really care that you don't like it that your deck has to find as much as 7 cards out of 75 to position itself favorably against a major player in the metagame.

In fact I find that attitude that you and other Dredge opponents hold about these precious 7 cards to be more troublesome and more damaging to Vintage than Dredge could ever possibly be.

 Some decks should have bad matchups period.  

What deck is favored against Dregde?

Ritual Storm decks.

[honestabe]

I don't really care that you don't like it that your deck has to find as much as 7 cards out of 75 to position itself favorably against a major player in the metagame.

In fact I find that attitude that you and other Dredge opponents hold about these precious 7 cards to be more troublesome and more damaging to Vintage than Dredge could ever possibly be.

  Some decks should have bad matchups period. 

What deck is favored against Dregde?

Ritual Storm decks.

Dredge is faster, and has Therapies to strip your hand.  Ritual based combo may have the best dredge MU, but it's still terrible.

[Stormanimagus]

I believe Dredge is still quite fair for the format and here's why.

Many of you in favor or restricting Bazaar based on how it "warps the format" frequently cite Paul M.'s experience in the Vintage Finals. I did not see the match so I cannot comment on it first hand, but I assure that the correct SB and counter-package can and WILL consistently beat dredge games 2/3. The reason that 6-8 SB slots devoted to Dredge is not at all too much to ask is that Dredge is all but neutered by this plan. Here are the %'s between game 1, 2 and 3 for Dredge if I had to guess against a prepared opponent with good SB hate and counters/Spheres to back the hate up.

Game 1: 90%
Game 2: 10%
Game 3: 20%

Game 3 is only slightly better than game 2 for Dredge because they are on the play. Being on the play will only give them a 1 turn window to Nature's Claim a Leyline and most Blue decks still have 7-8 Free counters for it.

Here's the game 1, 2, and 3 %'s for most decks in the field when they side in 2-4 cards for a given matchup:

Game 1: +- 50%
Game 2: +- 50%
Game 3: +- 50%

Get my point? Other decks facing each other will be only different than 50/50 based on match-ups. Dredge becomes 10-20% games 2 and 3 to the vast majority of the field (if we assume that the vast majority of the field is blue-based decks which I think we can). So I think it's perfectly fair that most other decks don't come close to 90% game 1. That would make those decks absurdly over-powered because they are much harder to hate out. I mean, how do you really hate out the Gush-Bond decks? Or Gro? Or Bob-Control? You can side in narrow cards, but these decks are designed to have some toolbox functionality and a robust control package. Vintage players just accept these decks as great and have crafted ways to even the odds over the years. Dredge decks are simply an extreme example of high risk, high reward. As a result they will probably always lose to the following card setups for game 2 and 3's.

4 Leyline of The Void
2-3 Yixlid Jailer
3-4 Mental Misstep
4 Force of Will
2-4 Spell Pierce/Flusterstorm or 3/4 Mana Drain

Mental Misstep is the primary reason I don't think dredge needs to be neutered as a deck. Misstep is a card that is MDable against a large portion of the field and is a house vs. Dredge during games 2/3.

Heck, even non-black decks have a great shot to beat dredge with some config like this

3-4 Ravenous Trap
3-4 Surgical Extraction
3-4 Snapcaster Mage
3-4 Mental Misstep
4 Force Of Will
2-4 Fluster/Spell Pierce
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
3-4 Tarmogoyf

Fish decks can simply apply the beats early and counter all Therapies aimed at their Traps. Then you would use the Traps efficiently to stay afloat and beat down with a 3/4 or 4/5 for the win. I've beaten Dredge with Fish before the advent of Mental Misstep and I think Misstep just makes it that much easier.

What about a shop list running a plan that looks something like this one:

4 Leyline Of The Void
2 Expedition Map
1 Bojuka Bog
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
4 Mental Misstep
2 Thorn of Amethyst
4 Sphere of Resistance
4 Lodestone Golem
1-2 Relic Of Progenitus/Tormod's Crypt

The lists that run Welder could also run 4 T. Crypt and forgo the Leylines and be just fine.

Do you see this? Shops can run 4 Misstep! SHOPS! Misstep + Spheres seems like a sure-fire way to ensure your hate will remain.

I am using these example to illustrate the point that Dredge is easy to hate out. This is why the 90% game 1's are warranted. It gives Dredge a chance to be on the play at least 1 more game to help it combat the hate. It will do them little good if they are matched against a prepared opponent. The fact of the matter is really just that Vintage players are NOT prepared and don't want to admit that they are not. They do want the format to be one where they can shove in more cards to their sb's to defeat the mirror. How boring a format would that be though?

I agree with something Stephen Menendian said. Vintage, as a format, is the result of the restricted list. That cannot be changed. We are stuck with A. Call, Tinker, Yawg. Will, DT, VT, MT, Time Walk and moxen + Lotus forever, and unless R & D really loses their minds we will not be seeing cards with this sort of raw generic power ever again. So, if this is true, why are we so up in arms against a deck that spices things up a bit and breaks the mold? We should be thankful that a deck like Dredge exists to spice things up and keep Vintage players on their toes. I doubt that the cards I listed above will ever be obsoleted by new printings so there will always be a "blue" deck viable in Vintage. Why not let some other decks in?

-Storm

[Joblin Velder]

I don't really care that you don't like it that your deck has to find as much as 7 cards out of 75 to position itself favorably against a major player in the metagame.

In fact I find that attitude that you and other Dredge opponents hold about these precious 7 cards to be more troublesome and more damaging to Vintage than Dredge could ever possibly be.

 Some decks should have bad matchups period.  

What deck is favored against Dregde?

I haven't dropped a game one to it with Dark Times. I've had 5 or 6 match ups in tournament play.

[diopter]

Shops on the Time Walk plan (stall with hate, win in the Time Walk-like window you get) can seriously wreck Dredge 2 out of 3.

Why? They have a realistic chance of doing it in game 1 (obv not all the time), even without modifying the maindeck specifically to augment the Dredge matchup.

[Shock Wave]

I am not sure what you mean by "get a true handle on the format". Are you suggesting that the only way to understand the state of a format is to play in large events? If so, I will have to disagree there. A player can test against the decks du jour to develop a very comprehensive understanding of how the archetypes function and how the matchups play out.

I don't know if I can agree with this.  We're judging a deck based on its performance in tournaments. Therefore, to truly be able to judge how that deck functions in tournament matchups, one should have first hand experience, preferably very recent experiement.  Otherwise, it seems like you're just naval-gazing or just just using intuition when empirical evidence is what's required.

The manner by which Dredge wins in tournaments is not different from the manner in which it wins against its opponents outside of tournament environments. Do you mean to suggest that I need to play in a Waterbury to understand how Dredge wins against Shops, or any other deck, for that matter? If I play against Player X in casual testing, are the functionalities of the archetypes involved somehow less accurate than if I were to play against Player X at Waterbury?

[Mindstab_Thrull]

OK.. maybe this will help a bit..

This weekend I played in my first Vintage event in a few years. It was a zero-proxy, sanctioned event held at Untouchables in Mississauga, Ontario. We only had a few players show up, so it was only three rounds, but:

* I played a substandard Oath list.
* Most of the players there were playing with black-bordered power, dual-lands, and the like.
* I faced Time Vault in two rounds that I recall.

There was no Flusterstorm being tossed around that I saw, but I *did* face Mental Misstep, Force of Will and Tinker into Blightsteel Colossus. And do you know what? The games were long. An Oath mirror in the third round me winning game 1, my opponent won a long, hard-fought battle on game 2, and then he beat me again in game 3. Even the "faster" games were still about the speed of Standard or Modern. I didn't see anyone win on turn 1 or 2, and in fact Landstill was being played.

Yes, this was a small event, but apparently Workshop players also show up with a fair amount of regularity. My very limited but very recent experience suggests that this is, as much as some might feel otherwise, not entirely a fast format, and it might really only be BSC that's speeding things up.



Just my two Sarpadian coppers

Mindstab Thrull

[Teps]

I am using these example to illustrate the point that Dredge is easy to hate out. This is why the 90% game 1's are warranted. It gives Dredge a chance to be on the play at least 1 more game to help it combat the hate. It will do them little good if they are matched against a prepared opponent. The fact of the matter is really just that Vintage players are NOT prepared and don't want to admit that they are not. They do want the format to be one where they can shove in more cards to their sb's to defeat the mirror. How boring a format would that be though?

I really agree with Storm here. i don't understand why Dredge is such a big deal to blue players, 7 sideboard cards and proper preparation simply wins you the majority of game 2 and 3s and occasionally game 1. The deck is a GLASS CANNON, easily destroyed by any interference, citing poor sideboard choices and bad play does not make the deck faster. The whole argument that half your sideboard has to be devoted to dredge is bad for a format is so dumb. If you want to cite other formats let's look at Standard, Kessig Wolf Run is a deck that is currently performing extremely well due to players inability to sideboard against it, having multiple strategies, Garruk, Wolf Run + Inkmoth, Dungrove Elder, and any big bombs makes it a hard deck to fight against. I would be so HAPPY that you can put 4 of a card that stops a deck before the match even begins (Leyline of the Void), that doesn't even seem fair if we were talking about a blue deck or shops but people simply exist that as a very fair card. Imagine this card:

Leyline of the Metal
2RR
If Leyline of the Metal is in your opening hand, you may start the game with in play.

All artifacts costing 2 or more go to the exile zone instead of coming into play.

This card would be absurd against shops! Imagine they couldn't even play a single spell non moxen/chalice without dealing with this card. The point I'm trying to make is that you can sideboard a card that literally makes the Dredge deck do essentially nothing. The fact that people are complaining that hey are sideboarding against a powerful glass cannon deck should quit magic and play chess. Anyone who gets mad about variance is invalid, it is part of Magic and if you really cannot deal with it simply play chess, it removes variance for all those who enjoy straight skill vs. skill matchups.

[Troy_Costisick]

I don't really care that you don't like it that your deck has to find as much as 7 cards out of 75 to position itself favorably against a major player in the metagame.

In fact I find that attitude that you and other Dredge opponents hold about these precious 7 cards to be more troublesome and more damaging to Vintage than Dredge could ever possibly be.

 Some decks should have bad matchups period.  

What deck is favored against Dregde?

R/G Beats:

Main Deck:

4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
4 Magus of the Moon
4 Mog Fanatic
4 Stingscourger

Sideboard:

5-7 Pieces of Hate

[Smmenen]

I suppose by "last tournament" you mean the last "major tournament"? It's been a while, probably 3 years. Again, what is the relevance?

The relevance is that it takes tournament preparation, focus, and recent experience to get a true handle on the format.   Even people with tremendous experience in the format cannot just jump in and get a true sense of it without swimming for a while.

I am not sure what you mean by "get a true handle on the format". Are you suggesting that the only way to understand the state of a format is to play in large events?

Actually, yes.

 If so, I will have to disagree there. A player can test against the decks du jour to develop a very comprehensive understanding of how the archetypes function and how the matchups play out. In addition, my position regarding the state of the format has nothing to do with the majority of the archetypes. My only concern is regarding Dredge (and to a lesser degree, Time Vault, and BSC)

I have no doubt that a player can learn matchups from testing.  

But tournament preparation is much more than understanding matchups:  It's making difficult cost/benefit decisions.  It's deciding to shave one card off for matchup A to boost matchup B.  It's tweaking the 60th card in your maindeck for matchup C instead of matchup D.  It's agonizing in the middle of the night about the last two cards in your deck.  

Cost/benefit decisions of that sort only occur in a tournament setting, and the kind of focus required demands the actual attention of a tournament, not a theorized list.  It's the difference, in football, between a scrimmage and a real game.  Tournament prep  brings tournament focus, which brings deeper (i.e. real) understanding.  

I watched the Vintage finals. I watched a match where I saw Paul draw what looked like an unbeatable hand and still lose. To me, that was an example of Dredge's incredible resiliency.

No doubt.  But the fact of the matter is that 1) the match went many, many turns, and 2) the outcome of the game was in doubt until the final turn.

Yup, what you say is all true. The match went many turns, and the outcome of the game was in doubt until the final turn. Those are definitely positive signs for Vintage.

But that's exactly what you criticized Dredge for being on the first page of this thread.  You said:

In fact, I see a striking similiarity between the 2007 metagame and the current metagame, in that there exists an extremely powerful deck, capable of consistently winning the game in the first few turns in degenerate fashion.

If Dredge isn't like Flash, if the games are interactive, meaningful, not fast, then what's the problem?

What I feel is not positive is the fact that Dredge has an unfair win percentage in the first game against pretty much every archetype, and also, it is incredibly resilient against even the most hateful of hands. The fact that Paul "skimped" on Dredge hate is not particularly relevant, since his opening hand had all the cards he needed and should have been enough to win.

I don't agree.   Usually, Dredge can destroy your first piece of hate.  You need to see at least two pieces of hate during the course of the game (and, I'd argue, three), in order to win.   To do that, you need more.  Had Paul had Jailer, like me, he would have been able to tutor chain for it, and easily win.  

Being able to win through one piece of hate doesn't make a deck degenerate.  Workshops can win through one piece of hate. 

A deck that gets a free first game in so many matches should not be able to battle through hate like that. When you add up all the powerful aspects of Dredge, it amounts to criteria that, IMO, illustrate an overpowered archetype.

Which I think underscores the point I made above.  If you don't have tournament experience recently, then you lack first hand inight into the agonizing cost/benefit choices that I described.  

One of the important aspects of Dredge is precisely HOW it affects sbing.  If Dredge were weakened, then sideboard space would be affected accross the format, in negative ways.  It's a good thing that blue sideboards are consumed with 6-8 Dredge sb cards.   That helps balance blue in the metagame.  Taking away Dredge would be a terrible thing for Vintage.  

[meadbert]

Dredge's game one win percentage is a function of their opponent's willingness to run disruption.

When folks complain they must dedicate half their sideboard, what they are really saying is they need not dedicate a single maindeck card to beating Dredge.

[chrispikula]

I mostly disagree with the Demars article. Even if he had some reasonable points, I think it painted a grim picture of Vintage that just isn't the reality.  I think the article did a disservice to the vintage scene and honestly just felt like a bit of sour grapes to me. 

[Smmenen]

I mostly disagree with the Demars article. Even if he had some reasonable points, I think it painted a grim picture of Vintage that just isn't the reality.  I think the article did a disservice to the vintage scene and honestly just felt like a bit of sour grapes to me. 

Well put. 

[Stormanimagus]

@Stephen — I would argue that Dredge CANNOT fight through 1 really good piece of hate like Jailer or Leyline anymore and the reason for this is simple: Mental Misstep. With possibly 8 turn 0 counters available to blue decks Dredge will often not be able to fire off that turn 1 Claim, Chain, D-Blast or Firestorm. After turn 1 you are online for things like Spell Pierce, Flusterstorm and eventually Mana Drain. You then just bury Dredge under CA and win. If you (the blue player) Draw a decently powerful hand with 1 piece of hate and 1-2 counters (1 of which is Misstep or FoW) you will probably be able to go all the way. 2 pieces of hate never hurts, but I wouldn't say it's as necessary as it used to be. Hence, I think 5-6 pieces of SB hate (good hate like Jailer or Leyline) only is needed, but also only if you have the counter support. Otherwise you'll need much more hate or spheres or something.

-Storm

[Shock Wave]

I suppose by "last tournament" you mean the last "major tournament"? It's been a while, probably 3 years. Again, what is the relevance?

The relevance is that it takes tournament preparation, focus, and recent experience to get a true handle on the format.   Even people with tremendous experience in the format cannot just jump in and get a true sense of it without swimming for a while.

I am not sure what you mean by "get a true handle on the format". Are you suggesting that the only way to understand the state of a format is to play in large events?

Actually, yes.

So let's say that a player tests Vintage regularly, and plays smaller events, but does not play in say, a Waterbury? Is their "handle on the format" more loose than say, a player who does not test Vintage regularly, but plays in a few large events a year? At what point does a player's position on the format become relevant? This is not a point I am particularly interested in debating, but I personally would not dismiss a player's opinion because they have not played in "large event" recently, yet still are actively involved in the format.

But tournament preparation is much more than understanding matchups:  It's making difficult cost/benefit decisions.  It's deciding to shave one card off for matchup A to boost matchup B.  It's tweaking the 60th card in your maindeck for matchup C instead of matchup D.  It's agonizing in the middle of the night about the last two cards in your deck.  

Cost/benefit decisions of that sort only occur in a tournament setting, and the kind of focus required demands the actual attention of a tournament, not a theorized list.  It's the difference, in football, between a scrimmage and a real game.  Tournament prep  brings tournament focus, which brings deeper (i.e. real) understanding.

Keep in mind that when testing (for example, against a random opponent), the setting is still very comparable to a tournament match. Your sideboard is tuned to test for whatever tournament you are preparing for. In such a testing environment, deck design is affected by the same exact same cost/benefit variables you speak of.

But that's exactly what you criticized Dredge for being on the first page of this thread.  You said:

In fact, I see a striking similiarity between the 2007 metagame and the current metagame, in that there exists an extremely powerful deck, capable of consistently winning the game in the first few turns in degenerate fashion.

If Dredge isn't like Flash, if the games are interactive, meaningful, not fast, then what's the problem?

Um, I said Dredge is capable of consistent turn two kills. I did not say that Dredge always kills on Turn 1 or Turn 2. In my opinion, the degree of consistency that Dredge enjoys is one of several points that I feel makes it overpowered.

Being able to win through one piece of hate doesn't make a deck degenerate.  Workshops can win through one piece of hate.

If I recall correctly, Paul had a Leyline, a Needle, and an early BSC. I'd say that that's a really strong hand against Dredge.

Which I think underscores the point I made above.  If you don't have tournament experience recently, then you lack first hand inight into the agonizing cost/benefit choices that I described.

I do have tournament experience recently, but not in a large event. I do not think the tournament exposure you describe is required to understand how Dredge functions and how the matchups play out.

[Smmenen]

I suppose by "last tournament" you mean the last "major tournament"? It's been a while, probably 3 years. Again, what is the relevance?

The relevance is that it takes tournament preparation, focus, and recent experience to get a true handle on the format.   Even people with tremendous experience in the format cannot just jump in and get a true sense of it without swimming for a while.

I am not sure what you mean by "get a true handle on the format". Are you suggesting that the only way to understand the state of a format is to play in large events?

Actually, yes.

So let's say that a player tests Vintage regularly, and plays smaller events, but does not play in say, a Waterbury? Is their "handle on the format" more loose than say, a player who does not test Vintage regularly, but plays in a few large events a year? At what point does a player's position on the format become relevant? This is not a point I am particularly interested in debating, but I personally would not dismiss a player's opinion because they have not played in "large event" recently, yet still are actively involved in the format.

But tournament preparation is much more than understanding matchups:  It's making difficult cost/benefit decisions.  It's deciding to shave one card off for matchup A to boost matchup B.  It's tweaking the 60th card in your maindeck for matchup C instead of matchup D.  It's agonizing in the middle of the night about the last two cards in your deck.  

Cost/benefit decisions of that sort only occur in a tournament setting, and the kind of focus required demands the actual attention of a tournament, not a theorized list.  It's the difference, in football, between a scrimmage and a real game.  Tournament prep  brings tournament focus, which brings deeper (i.e. real) understanding.

Keep in mind that when testing (for example, against a random opponent), the setting is still very comparable to a tournament match. Your sideboard is tuned to test for whatever tournament you are preparing for. In such a testing environment, deck design is affected by the same exact same cost/benefit variables you speak of.

Yes, but not with the same degree of focus or intensity as the pressure of a tournament.   Tournament conditions provide different insights than testing.   Testing can never duplicate tournament settings, no matter how elaborate or well designed.

But that's exactly what you criticized Dredge for being on the first page of this thread.  You said:

In fact, I see a striking similiarity between the 2007 metagame and the current metagame, in that there exists an extremely powerful deck, capable of consistently winning the game in the first few turns in degenerate fashion.

If Dredge isn't like Flash, if the games are interactive, meaningful, not fast, then what's the problem?

Um, I said Dredge is capable of consistent turn two kills. I did not say that Dredge always kills on Turn 1 or Turn 2. In my opinion, the degree of consistency that Dredge enjoys is one of several points that I feel makes it overpowered.

You made a direct allusion to 2007, and the suggestion that Dredge creates non-interactive, fast, linear combo decks.  That's also the essence of Brian Demars complaint in his article.  

I say the opposite is true: Dredge is not fast (in general), incredibly interactive, and not over powered.  

The Finals Match of the Vintage Championship, I think, shows the reality of the situation.  

Being able to win through one piece of hate doesn't make a deck degenerate.  Workshops can win through one piece of hate.

If I recall correctly, Paul had a Leyline, a Needle, and an early BSC. I'd say that that's a really strong hand against Dredge.

Yes, Paul drew two pieces of hate -- but one really isn't all that great, and it's ridiculous to think that a player should be able to win a game from just what's in their opening hand.

It's important that the opponent draw more pieces over the course of the game.   That's where Paul fell short.   If you understood the Dredge matchup better, you would know what I mean.

Which I think underscores the point I made above.  If you don't have tournament experience recently, then you lack first hand inight into the agonizing cost/benefit choices that I described.

I do have tournament experience recently, but not in a large event. I do not think the tournament exposure you describe is required to understand how Dredge functions and how the matchups play out.

But you missed the point: making those cost/benefit decisions & tournament experience underscores and brings into view the role that Dredge plays in the format at large: keeping Blue Decks honest, by forcing them to interact in other ways.  

As I said: it's presumptuous/arrogant to demand to have a favorable matchup based on the quantity of sideboard hate or have the DCI fix it for them?  Some decks should have bad matchups period.  

That's a big reason why most Vintage players -- 80% of the people who voted in my poll - don't want Bazaar restricted, despite the fact that many people probably don't enjoy playing against it.  They can appreciate the positive role it plays in the format.   It enhances the diversity of the format, creates strategic diversity, and interacts in a different way than normal, forcing players to make more skill intensive design and sb decisions. 

[credmond]

Whether or not the format can handle Dredge, there is still the question of the quality of play that Dredge brings to the format.

Playing or going up against manaless Dredge is all too often like you are not playing magic anymore. The dredge player all too frequently simply goldfishes their deck along all too consistently present lines of play. The degree to which the opposing player is even in the match boils down to sideboard preparation and the mulligan. Even though many games can happen that grind out and are interesting, manaless Dredge still presents a very deterministic monster. I think the real issue many are having is with how deterministic manaless Dredge is.

Rather than bazaar, I think restricting Serum powder is the way to infuse actual magic interactivity and play back into the Dredge matchup. The mana version of Dredge is still a monster but at least you are actually playing magic, and not some other card game.

[Smmenen]

Whether or not the format can handle Dredge, there is still the question of the quality of play that Dredge brings to the format.

The Vintage Championship Finals was one of the best matches of Magic I've seen ever for its drama, intensity, and fascinating game play (and I've played on the Magic Invitational).  It went many, many turns, it involved tons of relevant decisions, and it highlighted tons of skills.

I would judge Dredge, by that video and the crowd and interest, to be hugely positive.

I think the real issue many are having is with how deterministic manaless Dredge is.

Dredge isn't deterministic in a metagame in any meaningful sense... that's pure nonsense.  It's only deterministic if its undisrupted.  Well, that's true of anything in Magic. 


What some players don't like about Dredge is that they want to be lazy and just rely on old standby answers, and not be forced to interact in ways other than those dictated by blue mirrors.  

But the reason that the vast majority of Vintage players -- 80% of the people who voted in my poll - don't want Bazaar restricted, despite the fact that many people probably don't enjoy playing against it, is because they appreciate the positive role it plays in the format.   It enhances the diversity of the format, creates strategic diversity, and interacts in a different way than normal, forcing players to make more skill intensive design and sb decisions.  Tournament players understand the role that Dredge plays in the format at large: keeping Blue Decks honest, by forcing them to interact in other ways.  

[credmond]

Whether or not the format can handle Dredge, there is still the question of the quality of play that Dredge brings to the format.

The Vintage Championship Finals was one of the best matches of Magic I've seen ever for its drama, intensity, and fascinating game play (and I've played on the Magic Invitational).  It went many, many turns, it involved tons of relevant decisions, and it highlighted tons of skills.

I would judge Dredge, by that video and the crowd and interest, to be hugely positive.

What some players don't like about Dredge is that they want to be lazy and just rely on old standby answers, and not be forced to interact in ways other than those dictated by blue mirrors.  

But the reason that the vast majority of Vintage players -- 80% of the people who voted in my poll - don't want Bazaar restricted, despite the fact that many people probably don't enjoy playing against it, is because they appreciate the positive role it plays in the format.   It enhances the diversity of the format, creates strategic diversity, and interacts in a different way than normal, forcing players to make more skill intensive design and sb decisions.  Tournament players understand the role that Dredge plays in the format at large: keeping Blue Decks honest, by forcing them to interact in other ways.  

It doesn't matter whether the occasional match is interesting. Manaless Dredge enjoys a level of determinism in its lines of play that other decks do not have and that makes the matchup qualitatively a whole lot different than any other matchup. To the point where it becomes a whole different card game than magic.

So, in your rebuttal please comment on the determinism or chart a graph comparing the different archetypes along the variable of determinism. I am sure manaless Dredge is going to be off the charts. The people who have trouble with Dredge are not smoking crack here, there is something amiss and stupid in the matchup. The real culprit is not bazaar at all really, but Serum Powder's broken ability to reduce variance.

[Smmenen]

It doesn't matter whether the occasional match is interesting.

I didn't cite the Vintage Champs finals as exception to the rule; but to illustrate the rule: most Dredge matches, unless the Dredge opponent is terrible and/or unprepared, are interesting matches of Magic.

Manaless Dredge enjoys a level of determinism in its lines of play that other decks do not have and that makes the matchup qualitatively a whole lot different than any other matchup.

You are confusing two different ideas.   The problem people have with Dredge -- and what makes Dredge qualitatively different from other matchups -- is that they literally can't meaningfully interact with it unless they run graveyard hate.  Its lines of play are different from other decks, but that doesn't stem from being 'deterministic.'  That arises from being a graveyard based strategy. 

Calling Dredge deterministic is semantic drivel.  How deterministic is Dredge with a Leyline of the Void in play?   Hardly.  Yeah, so let's stop using that term. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

I also opposed the unrestriction of Mind Twist and Balance.

Whoa there!  Last I checked, Balance is still very restricted.