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

[Stormanimagus]

Agreed with Stephen there. And what is all this "Dredge isn't playing Magic" BS. It is magic because it uses cards that are legal in a MTG format. Are the cards somehow not licensed by WOTC? When was this announcement made.

credmond, your remark is absurd and only serves to point up the fact that Dredge nay-sayers are too attached to an idea of what magic "should" be and the kinds of interactions it "should" champion. There is no "should" in magic and especially in Vintage (the whole card pool is available). If you can design a deck that uses Scryb Sprites in a new and unique way to compete in the format than more power to you. If you can design THE Mortal Combat deck, or THE Oversoul of Dusk deck or THE Leylines deck AND that deck competes then it is "playing real magic" to win.

A deck should only be neutered based on an extreme level of tournament dominance over time. Then it is simply "playing real magic" better than any of the decks that can be built. I actually think a "Leyline" deck could become viable for Vintage with another solid Leyline printing because it would attack in a totally unique way (before turn 0). Such a deck could use Serra's Sanctum and Opalessence to attack opposing decks while disrupting them before turn 0. If such a deck had a place in the meta would you accuse it of "not playing real magic"?

I think I've made my point. These sorts of "real magic" statements when qualify deck X that runs blue stuff and counters or deck Y that runs fast artifact mana and brown AND NOTHING ELSE are absurd and elitist and have no place in Vintage.

-Storm

[Meddling Mike]

I also opposed the unrestriction of Mind Twist and Balance.

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

Perhaps his opposition was successful?

[credmond]

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. 

"Deterministic" is precisely the problem. It's not drivel at all. In fact manaless Dredge is nearly 100% deterministic, unless Leyline of the Void is in play or some other total-engine stopper is in play somehow. Whether or not Leyline of the Void exists is totally aside from the real issue, the real issue is that manaless Dredge enjoys a nearly 100% deterministic engine where it can make certain that it starts with the one card combo of bazaar in play - no other archetype brings that to the table. So, when manaless Dredge comes to the table, you are very much playing a different type of magic than in any other matchup. The level of determinism that manaless Dredge brings is completely without parallel.

[Shock Wave]

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.

So you're telling that if I sleeve up against a competent Dredge player in my kitchen, that our game provides less insight than if we were to play in a tournament? If that is the case, well, moving right along ...

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.

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.

You are correct there. I did make that allusion, and I do feel that the major of Dredge games are linear, moreso than any other archetype.

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

Well, I guess your experiences have been different from mine.

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

I guess we watched the same match yet saw something very different. I recall Dredge doing its usual shenanigans in G1 (Gee, do I have a Bazaar? Nope, mull. Oh look! I win!). I saw Paul mull into hate G2 (Do I have a Leyline? Yup. Keep and hope for the best). I saw the same in G3, except this time Dredge was able to hit both pieces of Paul's hate and also bounce his BSC.

...and it's ridiculous to think that a player should be able to win a game from just what's in their opening hand.

I find that most matches are not determined by the opening hands, with Dredge being the exception. In my experiences, most Dredge games are ultimately determined by the opening hands.

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.

I see that you are going back to your "If only you knew what you were talking about" comment. I guess you are right Steve; I have no idea what I am talking about. I guess I'll have to fly to the BoM event this spring so I can really understand the Dredge matchup.  

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.

Well Steve, my position is that it may be possible for Dredge to still exist with Bazaar, but without some other element, thereby slowing down the speed and disruption it currently enjoys. I do not want Dredge to disappear, but I think in its current incarnation, it is overpowered.

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.

Yup, you can count me in with those.

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.

... but I don't agree with any of the above.

[diopter]

credmond: have you ever played old school Sligh against old school U/W/x control (the style at the time was to run Herds and FoFs I believe)? It is very similar to Dredge v. BlueWithWill. Totally one sided if you didn't try to answer it, and often people went as far as sideboarding FOUR CoPs: Red.

Who are you to say what Magic "is". Do you not think that's a bit close-minded? In 18 years of Magic the game has been played on many levels. Your attempt to constrain Vintage to the few narrow modes of interaction that you prefer, will destroy the format utterly and long before Dredge ever gets there.

[diopter]

In other formats, opening hands are critical to success too. The "high-level" players seem to put great emphasis on correct mulliganing - wonder why they do that while we're aspiring to just rip whatever off the top and let our "skill" win games. Skill at what, topdecking?

[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.  

"Deterministic" is precisely the problem. It's not drivel at all. In fact manaless Dredge is nearly 100% deterministic, unless Leyline of the Void is in play or some other total-engine stopper is in play somehow. Whether or not Leyline of the Void exists is totally aside from the real issue, the real issue is that manaless Dredge enjoys a nearly 100% deterministic engine where it can make certain that it starts with the one card combo of bazaar in play - no other archetype brings that to the table. So, when manaless Dredge comes to the table, you are very much playing a different type of magic than in any other matchup. The level of determinism that manaless Dredge brings is completely without parallel.

First of all, even with Serum Powder, your chances of finding a Bazaar are only about 94%, and that's mulliganing to 1 to find it, not 100%.

Secondly, if I have a deck with 59 Islands and 1 Emrakul, I'm 100% gauranteed to find it, play it, and resolve it, should the game go long enough.  

Saying something is 'deterministic" unless X, Y, or Z happens is not deterministic at all. It's turning the meaning of the phrase on its head.  

People complain about Dredge because they don't like being forced to interact with GY hate, and they feel helpless in game one since very few decks have G1 GY hate, not because Dredge is so consistent (read: deterministic).  

Calling Dredge deterministic is distracting semantics.  You more or less mean that Dredge is consistent.  And, that's hardly what bothers people about Dredge, when they complain about it.  that's distracting from the real complaints that people have.

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.

So you're telling that if I sleeve up against a competent Dredge player in my kitchen, that our game provides less insight than if we were to play in a tournament? If that is the case, well, moving right along ...

Actually yes.   Because the process of preparing for a tournament illustrates a dynamic that doesn't come into play when just testing one matchup:  the full costs of a sideboard spot.  

One of the reasons people get Dredge 'trapped' is because they shave off a Dredge card from their SB at the last minute, in order to squeeze in that other card for some other matchup.   Other times, people run the "dredge gambit."

Tournaments aren't about individual matches or even individual matchups.  They are a complex, dynamic system of interfacing a particular set of 75 cards against an expected metagame.  

Playing a matchup in your kitchen may illustrate how one matchup plays out-- but it doesn't illustrate the full costs and benefits of each your maindeck and sideboard spots, nor does it illustrate how that decision process -- aggregated across the field by many players simultaneously -- produces tournament (system) outcomes (i.e. Top 8s).

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

I guess we watched the same match yet saw something very different. I recall Dredge doing its usual shenanigans in G1 (Gee, do I have a Bazaar? Nope, mull. Oh look! I win!). I saw Paul mull into hate G2 (Do I have a Leyline? Yup. Keep and hope for the best). I saw the same in G3, except this time Dredge was able to hit both pieces of Paul's hate and also bounce his BSC.

Every single matchup can be caricatured in that way.  Time Vault, Tinker, Lodestone Golem etc.

What I saw was a drama filled, intense, see-saw match, that was determined by player decision making (when to activate Bazaar on Mark's side of the board -- and what to discard), and a bunch of tutor based decision on Paul's part (including an error due to having two graveyard zones), and many, many turns in which the outcome of the match was in doubt.  

Ultimately, Paul lost because he didn't have enough maindeck hate.   Had he had Jailer, like I did, he could have tutored for it and resolved it for the win.

The drama was heightened because of the gravity of the outcome.  

...and it's ridiculous to think that a player should be able to win a game from just what's in their opening hand.

I find that most matches are not determined by the opening hands, with Dredge being the exception. In my experiences, most Dredge games are ultimately determined by the opening hands.

And that explains alot.

Your opening hand is important -- as it is in every matchup -- but any competent Dredge opponent must know that the hate they have in their opening hand is usually just delaying tactics -- buying more time to find and resolve more hate.   No competent Dredge opponent should believe that the opening hand Leyline can be protected for the rest of the game.  

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.

I see that you are going back to your "If only you knew what you were talking about" comment. I guess you are right Steve; I have no idea what I am talking about. I guess I'll have to fly to the BoM event this spring so I can really understand the Dredge matchup.  

You just said that the opening hand determines the outcome of the game; it rarely does against Dredge.  The only thing it determines is whether you will survive long enough to make a real game of it.

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.

Well Steve, my position is that it may be possible for Dredge to still exist with Bazaar, but without some other element, thereby slowing down the speed and disruption it currently enjoys. I do not want Dredge to disappear, but I think in its current incarnation, it is overpowered.

Yes, and doing that will reduce the need to pack graveyard hate in the  75 to combat Dredge, and thereby make Vintage less diverse, less strategically interesting, and empower blue decks further, making Vintage significantly worse off.

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.

Yup, you can count me in with those.

If you don't want Bazaar restricted either, then why are you debating that issue with me?

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.

... but I don't agree with any of the above.

You don't have to; 80% of Vintage players do.  

[Shock Wave]

If you don't want Bazaar restricted either, then why are you debating that issue with me?

Uhhh ... what?   Good luck finding a post where I suggested restricting Bazaar. I have never wanted that card restricted. Before Dredge, Bazaar fuelled some really interesting decks: Dragon, Replenish Combo, Stompy, Madness ... I don't think Bazaar is the problem at all.

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.

... but I don't agree with any of the above.

You don't have to; 80% of Vintage players do.  

Well, that's great. Last I recall, there was a parade of Vintage players that wanted Flash to stay as well. Thankfully, the "majority" did not get their way.

[Smmenen]

If you don't want Bazaar restricted either, then why are you debating that issue with me?

Uhhh ... what?   Good luck finding a post where I suggested restricting Bazaar. I have never wanted that card restricted. Before Dredge, Bazaar fuelled some really interesting decks: Dragon, Replenish Combo, Stompy, Madness ... I don't think Bazaar is the problem at all.

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.

... but I don't agree with any of the above.

You don't have to; 80% of Vintage players do.  

Well, that's great. Last I recall, there was a parade of Vintage players that wanted Flash to stay as well. Thankfully, the "majority" did not get their way.

Flash is not even remotely comparable to Dredge.   The Flash deck could easily win the game on turn 1 with tons of counterspell protection, and was hardly as susceptible to hate as Dredge is.  You literally had to have a Leyline to beat Flash most of the time. Dredge can be beat using lots of tactics, like Yixlid Jailer.  

Also, There was not even remotely the same support for Flash as there is today for Dredge.   They are leagues apart.




  

[MaximumCDawg]

Dehla and I are arguing over what "interaction" actually means in the Vintage Issues forum, and I think that's relevant to this discussion.

The definition of "interaction" I'm suggesting over there is an action in Magic that interferes with your opponent's strategic goals; making it harder for your opponent to win.  Obviously countering a spell or destroying a permanent can do this, but giving your opponent a one-turn clock (Tinker, Dredge) might count too, in the sense that it denies your opponent a time resource.  So when people complain that Dredge isn't interactive, they're saying that (1) It's focused on deploying its own threats quickly, and interferes with other deck's plans only insofar as it is faster; and (2) Due to the metagame, Dredge doesn't usually worry about people having maindeck cards that can slow it down.

Then, Meandeck and Co.'s rejoinder, that Dredge is totally interactive, makes sense.  Once you have hate and you interact with Dredge, Dredge has to switch gears and interact with you.  The need for active interaction quickly by the player opposing Dredge is no different from the need to actively prevent T1 Tinker-Blightsteel.  The hate is just potentially more specailized.  

In other words, due to its speed, Dredge demands at least as much interaction from the opponent, and in turn at least as much interaction from the Dredge pilot to overcome it, as any Blue deck does.

[credmond]

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.  

"Deterministic" is precisely the problem. It's not drivel at all. In fact manaless Dredge is nearly 100% deterministic, unless Leyline of the Void is in play or some other total-engine stopper is in play somehow. Whether or not Leyline of the Void exists is totally aside from the real issue, the real issue is that manaless Dredge enjoys a nearly 100% deterministic engine where it can make certain that it starts with the one card combo of bazaar in play - no other archetype brings that to the table. So, when manaless Dredge comes to the table, you are very much playing a different type of magic than in any other matchup. The level of determinism that manaless Dredge brings is completely without parallel.

First of all, even with Serum Powder, your chances of finding a Bazaar are only about 94%, and that's mulliganing to 1 to find it, not 100%.

Secondly, if I have a deck with 59 Islands and 1 Emrakul, I'm 100% gauranteed to find it, play it, and resolve it, should the game go long enough.  

Saying something is 'deterministic" unless X, Y, or Z happens is not deterministic at all. It's turning the meaning of the phrase on its head.  

People complain about Dredge because they don't like being forced to interact with GY hate, and they feel helpless in game one since very few decks have G1 GY hate, not because Dredge is so consistent (read: deterministic).  

Calling Dredge deterministic is distracting semantics.  You more or less mean that Dredge is consistent.  And, that's hardly what bothers people about Dredge, when they complain about it.  that's distracting from the real complaints that people have.

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.

So you're telling that if I sleeve up against a competent Dredge player in my kitchen, that our game provides less insight than if we were to play in a tournament? If that is the case, well, moving right along ...

Actually yes.   Because the process of preparing for a tournament illustrates a dynamic that doesn't come into play when just testing one matchup:  the full costs of a sideboard spot.  

One of the reasons people get Dredge 'trapped' is because they shave off a Dredge card from their SB at the last minute, in order to squeeze in that other card for some other matchup.   Other times, people run the "dredge gambit."

Tournaments aren't about individual matches or even individual matchups.  They are a complex, dynamic system of interfacing a particular set of 75 cards against an expected metagame.  

Playing a matchup in your kitchen may illustrate how one matchup plays out-- but it doesn't illustrate the full costs and benefits of each your maindeck and sideboard spots, nor does it illustrate how that decision process -- aggregated across the field by many players simultaneously -- produces tournament (system) outcomes (i.e. Top 8s).

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

I guess we watched the same match yet saw something very different. I recall Dredge doing its usual shenanigans in G1 (Gee, do I have a Bazaar? Nope, mull. Oh look! I win!). I saw Paul mull into hate G2 (Do I have a Leyline? Yup. Keep and hope for the best). I saw the same in G3, except this time Dredge was able to hit both pieces of Paul's hate and also bounce his BSC.

Every single matchup can be caricatured in that way.  Time Vault, Tinker, Lodestone Golem etc.

What I saw was a drama filled, intense, see-saw match, that was determined by player decision making (when to activate Bazaar on Mark's side of the board -- and what to discard), and a bunch of tutor based decision on Paul's part (including an error due to having two graveyard zones), and many, many turns in which the outcome of the match was in doubt.  

Ultimately, Paul lost because he didn't have enough maindeck hate.   Had he had Jailer, like I did, he could have tutored for it and resolved it for the win.

The drama was heightened because of the gravity of the outcome.  

...and it's ridiculous to think that a player should be able to win a game from just what's in their opening hand.

I find that most matches are not determined by the opening hands, with Dredge being the exception. In my experiences, most Dredge games are ultimately determined by the opening hands.

And that explains alot.

Your opening hand is important -- as it is in every matchup -- but any competent Dredge opponent must know that the hate they have in their opening hand is usually just delaying tactics -- buying more time to find and resolve more hate.   No competent Dredge opponent should believe that the opening hand Leyline can be protected for the rest of the game.  

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.

I see that you are going back to your "If only you knew what you were talking about" comment. I guess you are right Steve; I have no idea what I am talking about. I guess I'll have to fly to the BoM event this spring so I can really understand the Dredge matchup.  

You just said that the opening hand determines the outcome of the game; it rarely does against Dredge.  The only thing it determines is whether you will survive long enough to make a real game of it.

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.

Well Steve, my position is that it may be possible for Dredge to still exist with Bazaar, but without some other element, thereby slowing down the speed and disruption it currently enjoys. I do not want Dredge to disappear, but I think in its current incarnation, it is overpowered.

Yes, and doing that will reduce the need to pack graveyard hate in the  75 to combat Dredge, and thereby make Vintage less diverse, less strategically interesting, and empower blue decks further, making Vintage significantly worse off.

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.

Yup, you can count me in with those.

If you don't want Bazaar restricted either, then why are you debating that issue with me?

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.

... but I don't agree with any of the above.

You don't have to; 80% of Vintage players do.  

I would call 94% nearly 100%, especially compared to other decks which are dealing with percentages around 50% to see a particular card.

Also for determinism, to be clear -- "In mathematics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.  A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."

Thus, determinism is actually a helpful descriptor that indicates the ability of a deck to directly reduce randomness and produce a predictable result. As a term it describes the advantage manaless Dredge has over other decks much better than simply "consistency". When unfettered, manaless Dredge predictably burns through its entire deck 94% of the time. Its a machine. In fact, like no other deck, manaless Dredge boils down to predictability. You can program a computer quite easily to run through the flow of steps. The flip side of this deterministic phenomena is the tipping point blue decks have when they pack 7 as opposed to 6 sideboard cards to fight Dredge. Predictable. We aren't playing the same kind of magic as everywhere else here. We are dealing with a machine.

[Smmenen]

This is Magic Theory from my Gush book, but my basic understanding of Magic goes something like this:

1) Every deck in Magic pursues Strategic Goals that satisfy Rule 104 Conditions.  Rule 104 conditions are the conditions under which a game of magic may be won.  

2) Consequently, every deck in Magic has plan to satisfy those conditions, and pursues them as much as possible.   The plan is basically the coordination of resources, tactics, and strategic goals to satisfy Rule 104 conditions.  An example of a strategic goal might be to resolve Yawgmoth's Will or assemble Time Vault + Voltaic Key.  

3) Although every deck has a plan to win the game, attempting to win the game alone -- like two Burn players throwing Bolts against each other to race and see who wins first -- is not always the best plan (or even an available plan) for winning.  Tactics that disrupt the opponent are sometimes necessary to achieve your goals, such as preventing them from winning first.

4) In other words: every deck in Magic does two things:

1) it pursues its own strategic objectives to satisfy Rule 104 conditions, while
2) simultaneously attempting to thwart the opponent from achieving their strategic objectives.

These two ideas are sometimes known as the Beatdown or Control role, and that's how I define them in my Gush book (although I use a transmission metaphor -- and call them high/low gear).  

Interaction in Magic arises because of the latter idea.   That is, it is when a player attempts to thwart another player from achieving their strategic objectives that players interact. 

Within Magic's basic design are cards (tactics) that thwart various strategies.  In Alpha, there is designed into the game an answer for almost every kind of threat.  There are removal for creatures, consecrate land for land destruction, protection for hand destruction (in Legends), ways to gain life, counterspells, etc.  

Interaction is basically anything an opponent does to attempt to thwart an opponent from achieving their strategic objectives OR an answer to such tactics (such as Chain on Leyline).  

I don't think Dredge is totally interactive, since it does very little in Game 1 to thwart the opponent from winning (although previous versions ran Chalices on top of Cabal Therapies), but the post-board games are very interactive

Also for determinism, to be clear -- "In mathematics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.  A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."

Thus, determinism is actually a helpful descriptor that indicates the ability of a deck to directly reduce randomness and produce a predictable result. As a term it describes the advantage manaless Dredge has over other decks much better than simply "consistency". When unfettered, manaless Dredge predictably burns through its entire deck 94% of the time. Its a machine. In fact, like no other deck, manaless Dredge boils down to predictability. You can program a computer quite easily to run through the flow of steps. The flip side of this deterministic phenomena is the tipping point blue decks have when they pack 7 as opposed to 6 sideboard cards to fight Dredge. Predictable. We aren't playing the same kind of magic as everywhere else here.

I understand what you meant by determinism, but if you read what I just wrote, then you'll see why I say its semantics: every deck in Magic, undisrupted, is deterministic -- it has a plan for winning the game, and that plan will be achieved with complete consistency if the deck is not disrupted.  Oath decks will resolve and trigger Oath.   Gush decks will resolve Gush and Fastbond out.  

As I said before: "if I have a deck with 59 Islands and 1 Emrakul, I'm 100% gauranteed to find it, play it, and resolve it, should the game go long enough."  

It's not helpful to say something is deterministic unless disrupted, since all Magic decks -- with almost no exception -- are designed to interact at some point in a match.  They do this both to prevent the opponent from achieving their strategic objectives, and to protect their own strategic objectives from tactical interference.  

It's also not helpful because even if your point is true, and it's not, that's besides the point.The fact that Dredge may be deterministic -- even more so than other decks -- does not tell us why people don't like it.   People don't complain about Dredge because its consistent (or even deterministic).  It's been consistent since 2008 now.  They complain about it because they don't like they don't like being forced to run graveyard hate -- they don't like being forced to interact in what they feel is a narrow area of the game, and get run over if they don't.  

Far from being different or unique, Dredge does exactly what the magic theory I just articulated suggests all decks do: pursue strategic goals while thwarting the opponent from achieving theirs.   In the case of dredge, one of the ways in pursues its own strategic goals is by attempting to answer opposing tactics.  From a basic theory POV, Dredge is like any other deck in Magic.   What's unique about  is not that it is a "machine", but that the forms those strategic objectives take, and the form the tactical answers take, is narrow compared to how most decks interact.  

That's pretty much it.  
 

[credmond]

Manaless dredge is a one card combo deck.

It uses Serum Powder to see that card 94% of the time.

It draws its entire deck (or close to its entire deck) in the execution of its strategy.

Other decks play 7 sb cards in order to have, after a mulligan, an answer in hand to derail this monster.

The closest comparison is maybe some version of oath with no creatures and a yawgwill and storm kill and that has ~40% chance at best to assemble the combo.

Manaless dredge is a machine.

[Smmenen]

Manaless dredge is a one card combo deck.

It uses Serum Powder to see that card 94% of the time.

It draws its entire deck (or close to its entire deck) in the execution of its strategy

The closest comparison is maybe some version of oath with no creatures and a yawgwill and storm kill and that has ~40% chance at best to assemble the combo.

Manaless dredge is a machine.

Fancy, but meaningless verbiage.   Gush decks are a machine.  Workshops are a machine.  Oath decks are a machine.  

Perhaps the greatest lie propagated in these debates is the idea that Dredge is  one-card combo.  If that were so, then all it would need to do is play Bazaar and win the game.   Yet, as every one in this entire format knows, that's patently untrue.   Tell that to the Dredge player who is facing Leyline of the Void in play.  One need only watch the Vintage Champs video for proof.  

People don't complain about Dredge because it's a 'one-card combo' (which it patently isn't).  They complain because they don't like being forced to run graveyard hate to beat it.  

Other decks play 7 sb cards in order to have, after a mulligan, an answer in hand to derail this monster.

They don't have to; they could just play spells maindeck graveyard instead.   Brian ran two Nihil Spellbombs maindeck in his Snapcaster deck.  
 
People often run 6+ sideboard cards for Workshops.  The only reason people don't run lots of anti-blue hate is because most blue decks are pre-sideboarded, in a sense, for each other.

Dredge keeps this format honest, and provides important strategic and tactical diversity.  If everyone ran maindeck graveyard hate, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  That's proves what people's real concerns are.   

[vaughnbros]

I would call 94% nearly 100%, especially compared to other decks which are dealing with percentages around 50% to see a particular card.

Also for determinism, to be clear -- "In mathematics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.  A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."

Thus, determinism is actually a helpful descriptor that indicates the ability of a deck to directly reduce randomness and produce a predictable result. As a term it describes the advantage manaless Dredge has over other decks much better than simply "consistency". When unfettered, manaless Dredge predictably burns through its entire deck 94% of the time. Its a machine. In fact, like no other deck, manaless Dredge boils down to predictability. You can program a computer quite easily to run through the flow of steps. The flip side of this deterministic phenomena is the tipping point blue decks have when they pack 7 as opposed to 6 sideboard cards to fight Dredge. Predictable. We aren't playing the same kind of magic as everywhere else here. We are dealing with a machine.

How can you possibly say 94% = 100%, 6% is a big difference if i was to say i have a 50% compared to a 44% win percentage against a deck 1 would be considered even the other i am at a distinct disadvantage.  And obviously they are going to have a higher % chance of seeing the card when they have 4 serum powders and are willing to mulligan to 1 to see it.  They only have about a 52% chance of seeing it with 7 cards.  And you only have a 40% chance of seeing a card in your opening hand unless you mulligan, with draw spells and tutors id argue blue decks have a 100% chance of seeing any card in their deck in a reasonable amount of time.

You cant use a word that says no randomness in its definition to describe a game where you have probabilities... to say just seeing a bazaar is a win is such an overstatement of dredges ability, if they have to mulligan too many times their speed is significantly reduced.  

Manaless dredge is a one card combo deck.

Yes a 1 card combo deck that takes nearly your entire 60 card library to pull off

[credmond]

Smennen,

All you seem to be able to do is employ sophistry to defend your agenda, which seems to be telling people that what they experience is wrong.


My statements are more in line with what people actually experience. It has an experiential reality that you can't fluff away. Namely that Dredge is a different beast than other magic decks. Its a machine. The biggest lie being perpetrated here is that what people are experiencing in game play is summed up as drivel or verbiage.



Game 1: My opponent is on dredge. Dredge does what dredge does. I look at my opening seven which would have been good versus any other deck.

Game 2: I mull to 6 and hit Leyline and stop his engine in its tracks and keep him off chain with my counterspells.

Game 3: I can't mull for sh*t.

Or any other variant of "Cool, my opponent is on manaless Dredge. Let's all take a break from magic and play the mull game."

[Smmenen]

Smennen,

All you seem to be able to do is employ sophistry to defend your agenda, which seems to be telling people that what they experience is wrong.

I'm not telling then their experience is wrong.  I'm telling you why YOU are wrong.  

Over and over again I've acknowledged what it is that people don't like about Dredge.   I KNOW why people don't like Dredge.  

It's not because it's deterministic.  It's not because it's a one-card combo.  It's not because it's not magic (it clearly is -- Dredge does exactly what I said Magic decks do -- pursue strategic goals while preventing an opponent from achieving theirs).   It's not even because it's too fast.  

People don't like Dredge because they don't like being compelled to run a bunch of graveyard hate in their 75 or auto-lose.  

Yet, what you don't get, but 80% of Vintage players understand, is that Dredge is ultimately good for Vintage, even if they don't like it personally.  

Sure, I would LOVE for the DCI to come down and nuke a bad matchup.  Who wouldn't?   But that wouldn't be good for the overall health (of which diversity is an important component) of the format.

If Dredge were as fast as Trinisphere or Flash, you would have an argument.  If Dredge produced the kind of steroetyped games you caricatured, maybe.  But it doesn't. 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.

The Dredge haters (i.e. the proponents of Bazaar's restriction) rely on hyperbole, exaggerated rhetoric, caricatured depictions of Dredge matches, and untenable comparisons to make their case against an archetype because they have little else to go on.  It's clearly not on the same scale as Flash or Trinisphere, and it's hardly dominant like Thirst was. 

[Smmenen]

ook at my opening seven which would have been good versus any other deck.

Game 2: I mull to 6 and hit Leyline and stop his engine in its tracks and keep him off chain with my counterspells.

Game 3: I can't mull for sh*t.

Or any other variant of "Cool, my opponent is on manaless Dredge. Let's all take a break from magic and play the mull game."

This caricatured sketch is such a bald preference for certain types of interaction its ridiculous.  You even show your hand by saying "keep him off chain with my counterspells."  

I'm sure some players would be pleased if all they had to do all day was play blue mirrors, where the only thing that mattered was developing mana, and engaging in skill-based counterspell battles, especially with Mana Drains.  One could certainly read Brian's article that way.  

Yet, Magic is not set up that way.   Interaction in magic takes many forms, although in Vintage, it typically happens with countermagic, Sphere effects, and graveyard spells.  

Asking the DCI to restrict Bazaar is tantamount to saying that we don't like strategies that require graveyard hate to combat, but are ok with artifact prison strategies and blue control strategies.  

That's about as illegitimate a basis for restriction as you can devise.  It's a bald preference for certain forms of interaction over others without respect to whether Dredge is actually a problem deck.  

Dredge meets none of the other criteria for restriction: it's not dominant, it's not a turn one deck (or even a turn two deck, post-board), and it's entirely self-regulating.   The better it does, the more hate people will pack, and the worse it will perform   The outcome of dredge matchups is decided by skill (once you run enough hate), and the games are quality, highly interactive games.  

[credmond]

Smennen,

All you seem to be able to do is employ sophistry to defend your agenda, which seems to be telling people that what they experience is wrong.

I'm not telling then their experience is wrong.  I'm telling you why YOU are wrong.  

Over and over again I've acknowledged what it is that people don't like about Dredge.   I KNOW why people don't like Dredge.  

It's not because it's deterministic.  It's not because it's a one-card combo.  It's not because it's not magic (it clearly is -- Dredge does exactly what I said Magic decks do -- pursue strategic goals while preventing an opponent from achieving theirs).   It's not even because it's too fast.  

People don't like Dredge because they don't like being compelled to run a bunch of graveyard hate in their 75 or auto-lose.  

Yet, what you don't get, but 80% of Vintage players understand, is that Dredge is ultimately good for Vintage, even if they don't like it personally.  

Sure, I would LOVE for the DCI to come down and nuke a bad matchup.  Who wouldn't?   But that wouldn't be good for the overall health (of which diversity is an important component) of the format.

If Dredge were as fast as Trinisphere or Flash, you would have an argument.  If Dredge produced the kind of stereotyped games you caricatured, maybe.  But it doesn't. 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.

The Dredge haters (i.e. the proponents of Bazaar's restriction) rely on hyperbole, exaggerated rhetoric, caricatured depictions of Dredge matches, and untenable comparisons to make their case against an archetype because they have little else to go on.  It's clearly not on the same scale as Flash or Trinisphere, and it's hardly dominant like Thirst was. 

Fluffy jump of logic there to go from a poll about Restricting Bazaar to a claim that those who vote against restricting Bazaar are stating unequivocally that Dredge is ultimately good for Vintage. Would you care to expand upon your logic there? Consider that I voted no for restricting bazaar (-- wrong restriction for the job).

I don't care for the manaless Dredge matchup (either playing it or playing against it) because the gameplay involved is so distorted as to not even feel like a magic game. I am not secretly pissed off about the number of graveyard cards in my sideboard. Quit telling me or other people what they think or experience.

Manaless dredge is a machine that distorts the game play to the point of being a distant mutant cousin at best of a more typical magic game, for many that is unfun, and that is bad. The experience of those who find it unfun is very real, in spite of how many times you gawk and awe at the championship match, as if that shovels aside people's experience.

[Smmenen]

I don't care for the manaless Dredge matchup (either playing it or playing against it) because the gameplay involved is so distorted as to not even feel like a magic game. I am not secretly pissed off about the number of graveyard cards in my sideboard. Quit telling me or other people what they think or experience.

I'm not saying that what drives people's dislike for Dredge is a secret.  Everyone knows it, and lots of people openly acknowledge it.  In fact, you implicitly do below: you said that playing Dredge is 'atypical'?  How is Dredge a typical?  Dredge is only atypical in that it involves a battle over graveyard hate instead of a blue stack or battleifled filled with Spheres.  

Manaless dredge is a machine that distorts the game play to the point of being a distant mutant cousin at best of a more typical magic game, for many that is unfun, and that is bad. The experience of those who find it unfun is very real, in spite of how many times you gawk and awe at the championship match, as if that shovels aside people's experience.

I know that some people find it unfun.   You act as if the reason they find it unfun is different from what I said.  They find it unfun because they don't want to interact over graveyard hate.  (or, your language "a typical" forms of interaction). 

As I said:  I'm sure some players would be pleased if all they had to do all day was play blue mirrors, where the only thing that mattered was developing mana, and engaging in skill-based counterspell battles, especially with Mana Drains.  One could certainly read Brian's article that way.  

Yet, Magic is not set up that way.   Interaction in magic takes many forms, although in Vintage, it typically happens with countermagic, Sphere effects, and graveyard spells.  

Asking the DCI to restrict Bazaar is tantamount to saying that we don't like strategies that require graveyard hate to combat, but are ok with artifact prison strategies and blue control strategies.  

There is nothing about Dredge that isn't Magic.   The only thing that's different about it is that it interacts in a different form from other decks.   Dredge is just like every other deck in that it pursues its strategic objectives while preventing the opponent from achieving theirs, and by preventing the opponent from preserving tactics that thwart its game plan.   Instead of fighting over spheres, creature combat/removal, or counterspells, Dredge plays spells from the graveyard.  

Complaining that "Dredge isn't Magic" is a naked preference for some forms of interaction over others "because I'm used to those."   In other words, it's whining.  

Lots of people find Workshops to be unfun to play against.  What's next, restrict Workshop?  Dredge is an integral part of a very healthy and diverse metagame.  

Oh, but I forgot, you would ban cards from the format...

[credmond]

I don't care for the manaless Dredge matchup (either playing it or playing against it) because the gameplay involved is so distorted as to not even feel like a magic game. I am not secretly pissed off about the number of graveyard cards in my sideboard. Quit telling me or other people what they think or experience.

I'm not saying that what drives people's dislike for Dredge is a secret.  Everyone knows it, and lots of people openly acknowledge it.  In fact, you implicitly do below: you said that playing Dredge is 'atypical'?  How is Dredge a typical?  Dredge is only atypical in that it involves a battle over graveyard hate instead of a blue stack or battleifled filled with Spheres.  

Manaless dredge is a machine that distorts the game play to the point of being a distant mutant cousin at best of a more typical magic game, for many that is unfun, and that is bad. The experience of those who find it unfun is very real, in spite of how many times you gawk and awe at the championship match, as if that shovels aside people's experience.

I know that some people find it unfun.   You act as if the reason they find it unfun is different from what I said.  They find it unfun because they don't want to interact over graveyard hate.  (or, your language "a typical" forms of interaction).  

As I said:  I'm sure some players would be pleased if all they had to do all day was play blue mirrors, where the only thing that mattered was developing mana, and engaging in skill-based counterspell battles, especially with Mana Drains.  One could certainly read Brian's article that way.  

Yet, Magic is not set up that way.   Interaction in magic takes many forms, although in Vintage, it typically happens with countermagic, Sphere effects, and graveyard spells.  

Asking the DCI to restrict Bazaar is tantamount to saying that we don't like strategies that require graveyard hate to combat, but are ok with artifact prison strategies and blue control strategies.  

There is nothing about Dredge that isn't Magic.   The only thing that's different about it is that it interacts in a different form from other decks.   Dredge is just like every other deck in that it pursues its strategic objectives while preventing the opponent from achieving theirs, and by preventing the opponent from preserving tactics that thwart its game plan.   Instead of fighting over spheres, creature combat/removal, or counterspells, Dredge plays spells from the graveyard.  

Complaining that "Dredge isn't Magic" is a naked preference for some forms of interaction over others "because I'm used to those."   In other words, it's whining.  

Lots of people find Workshops to be unfun to play against.  What's next, restrict Workshop?  Dredge is an integral part of a very healthy and diverse metagame.  

Oh, but I forgot, you would ban cards from the format...

I like playing and playing against the mana version of Dredge. I think its Serum Powder which is the actual abuser here. It enables a deck to ditch everything to find one card to deterministically get its engine going. Without serum powder, the game play of dredge is much more in line with magic.

Serum powder is actually quite outrageous in its power level. It is exactly what makes manaless Dredge overly deterministic.

Oh, but I forgot, you would ban cards from the format...

Yup, you and Chapin are also on record as advocating for banning things like Tinker or Will. You even wrote an article or two on it. I can quote you on why those should be banned. You simply gave up on fighting that fight since you think its unwinnable, although in my opinion its still the logical and straightforward thing to do.

I am a big advocate for clear thinking and straightforward solutions. . . if tinker, will, and vault are radical format warpers and the biggest obstacle for a broad player base, then why protect them? If serum powder is abused by manaless dredge to the point of high determinism then restrict powder.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Smennen,

All you seem to be able to do is employ sophistry to defend your agenda, which seems to be telling people that what they experience is wrong.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Despite qualitative observations about "faster" Vintage and anecdotes about turn 1 Blightsteel Colossus, Steve dove into the data anyways and made a reasonable argument.  While I'm happy to accuse him of rhetoric over substance in his replies on TMD, his data does appear to say that your perspective on your experience is wrong.

The question isn't one of speed or diversity (how many distinct Gush decks are there?).  Instead, the question is whether or not DeMars is correct in asserting that the format could have better and more meaningful if we didn't have such prominent one-card combos (owing to "superficial" diversity and it taking turns to clean up games that are already effectively won).  No matter which side you take on that, the format can only become more "powerful" as cards are added over time.  And the result will be more of the current trend.

[Smmenen]

I like playing and playing against the mana version of Dredge. I think its Serum Powder which is the actual abuser here. It enables a deck to ditch everything to find one card to deterministically get its engine going. Without serum powder, the game play of dredge is much more in line with magic.

Being deterministic isn't a problem.  This point is easy to see if I clarify it with a simple hypothetical thought experiment wh8ch proves my point logically.

Suppose there is a strategy in the format, let's call is Strategy X, which can set in motion its game plan from the first turn 100% of the time with any opening hand of 7 cards.  Let's say that this game plan produces a turn 3 victory with 100% consistency.   Let's further say, just to keep the hypothetical simple, that this game plan never wins on turn 2 or turn 4, but always on turn 3.

Now, suppose that there are a number of cards in the format that stops Strategy X's game plan with 100% effectiveness, and once it has been played (and let's say its free to play), Strategy X automatically loses.

This strategy would be clearly fair.  It's the definition of a glass cannon strategy -- getting Moated with only non-flying creatures.  

Of course, this is not Dredge, but it is a simplified example that illustrates a principle here: that determinism is not the real issue.   Strategy X is completely deterministic undisrupted.   But when disrupted, it loses.


****

People don't like Dredge because it doesn't "feel" like regular Magic.  The reason it doesn't feel like regular magic is because fighting over graveyard hate isn't a typical or conventional form of interaction.

But, just because the form of interaction is atypical doesn't make it any less a) interaction or b) Magic.   

As I write in my Gush book, all Magic decks pursue their strategic objectives and thwart the opponents.  They do the latter by disrupting the opponent.  They accomplish the former by playing cards that achieve interim and ultimate strategic goals, and by playing tactics that prevent the opponent from stopping the pursuit of these goals.

Dredge, far from being an exception, perfectly illustrates this.  We can even diagram how Dredge does this.  Finding Bazaar is the first interim strategic goal, and it uses a tactic, Serum Powder, to achieve it.   Activating Bazaar is the next strategic goal.  The final strategic goal is Dread Returning on a FKZ and attaacking with lethal on-board damage. 

Ultimately, as I've said: Interaction in magic takes many forms, although in Vintage, it typically happens with countermagic, Sphere effects, and graveyard spells. 

Asking the DCI to restrict Bazaar is tantamount to saying that we don't like strategies that require graveyard hate to combat, but are ok with artifact prison strategies and blue control strategies.  Complaining that "Dredge isn't Magic" is a naked preference for some forms of interaction over others "because I'm used to those." 

Serum powder is actually quite outrageous in its power level. It is exactly what makes manaless Dredge overly deterministic.

Serum Powder is of a high power level, but it is not outrageous.  the costs of running Serum Powder in most decks are far too high

If Serum Powder were truly outrageous, then it would see alot more play because the benefits would clearly outweigh the costs.  For most decks, the benefits of Serum Powder are not actually that great, and the costs are even greater.  That's because most blue decks in Vintage rely on large portions of the restricted list, and are very nonlinear in their game plan.  

Serum Powder is an inherently balanced card in a format with a Restricted list: empowering decks that rely less on the restricted list while not being abused by decks that do.  

Smennen,

All you seem to be able to do is employ sophistry to defend your agenda, which seems to be telling people that what they experience is wrong.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Despite qualitative observations about "faster" Vintage and anecdotes about turn 1 Blightsteel Colossus, Steve dove into the data anyways and made a reasonable argument.  While I'm happy to accuse him of rhetoric over substance in his replies on TMD, his data does appear to say that your perspective on your experience is wrong.

The question isn't one of speed or diversity (how many distinct Gush decks are there?).  Instead, the question is whether or not DeMars is correct in asserting that the format could have better and more meaningful if we didn't have such prominent one-card combos (owing to "superficial" diversity and it taking turns to clean up games that are already effectively won).  No matter which side you take on that, the format can only become more "powerful" as cards are added over time.  And the result will be more of the current trend.

I appreciate your lukewarm agreement with my article, but there is one thing I would say, and I've said to you before: evidence takes the form of both facts and logical reasoning.  The arguments i'm making are both empirical (in my article), and logic-based.  I just illustrated the latter with my thought-experiment.

Also, the descriptive labels I've been using are rooted in factual reality.   My description, for example, of the Vintage Finals match as being many turns, skill intensive, etc. are true observations.  

[credmond]

Bazaar isn't the problem, Serum Powder is.

Mana dredge isn't the problem, Manaless Dredge is.

Serum powder brings a level of determinism that is unfun to the game.

Demars critique is misplaced. He should have targeted Serum Powder. Bazaar is fine. I don't have a problem with graveyard strategies at all. I've played both versions of dredge and dawn of the dead at tournaments.

Serum Powder - that card is easily overpowered enough to warrant restriction. Why is timetwister restricted and not serum powder?

It doesn't matter if Serum Powder is balanced in most decks. Its how unbalanced it is in manaless dredge!

Fixating on bazaar as the battleground is obscuring what would be a real solution, and one that could be logically and substantively argued.

[Smmenen]

Bazaar isn't the problem, Serum Powder is.

Mana dredge isn't the problem, Manaless Dredge is.

Serum powder brings a level of determinism that is unfun to the game.

Demars critique is misplaced. He should have targeted Serum Powder. Bazaar is fine. I don't have a problem with graveyard strategies at all. I've played both versions of dredge and dawn of the dead at tournaments.

That card is easily overpowered enough to warrant restriction. Why is timetwister restricted and not serum powder?

Fixating on bazaar as the battleground is obscuring what would be a real solution, and one that could be logically and substantively argued.

Serum Powder isn't a problem.  If it were, it would be played in more decks. 

In fact, Serum Powder is an inherently balanced card in Vintage, boosting only decks that don't overly abuse the Restricted List.  It's a perfect example of the kinds of cards we want in Vintage. 

People don't find Dredge unfun because its deterministic.   Being deterministic doesn't make a deck unfun or unfair. 

What makes Dredge unfun is the forms of interaction (narrow by conventional standards) required to combat dredge.   Cards used against Dredge are pretty weak against everything else.   In short, people prefer to interact in traditional ways (i.e. blue counterspell interactions or Spheres), and don't like being compelled to fight over GY hate. 

Asking for Bazaar or Serum Powder to be restricted is tantamount to preferring one form of interaction over another, because it can't be grounded in any other usual basis.   Dredge produces interactive, skill intensive post-board games in the main, as long as the opponent isn't incompetent.   Nor does it win fast,post-board, like Flash did.

What's worse, asking to hurt Dredge when we have a diverse, dynamic metagame risks harming Vintage.   When the metagame is so amazing right now, that seems very self-destructive.   

[hitman]

@ Credmond - This really is very simple and I don't know why you're arguing about it.  Steve has pointed out that the three main archetypes of Vintage interact on three different levels or in three different zones, which is true.  Blue decks tend to interact on the stack; Workshop decks tend to interact on the battlefield and Dredge tends to interact out of the graveyard.  He further argues that blue players have a definite preference for interacting on the stack over other legitimate forms of interaction.  The argument is that any restriction to Dredge at this point in time with the limited success it's historically and presently had is evidence that players who prefer, say, stack interactions want to force these types of interactions on the other archetypes.  Your insistence on restricting Serum Powder further reinforces his argument in that you want Dredge to operate like 'real' Magic, meaning interacting on the stack.  You're essentially saying you want Dredge to operate on the stack, like 'real' Magic instead of out of the graveyard.  You don't understand that you're reinforcing his argument while thinking you're not.  He's saying if other archetypes would accomodate other forms of interaction in their deck construction plans, they wouldn't experience this 'helplessness' at the 'over-the-top' power level of Dredge when it's really just unpreparedness.  If you choose to ignore one of the three main forms of interaction in this format, you'll reap the consequences of it just as if you choose not to interact in a meaningful way against Workshops or blue decks.  Players who choose to interact with Dredge in a meaningful way don't experience egregious problems with Dredge.  

@ Smmenen - I wholeheartedly agree with your stance in regards to Dredge.  

[credmond]

@ Credmond - This really is very simple and I don't know why you're arguing about it.  Steve has pointed out that the three main archetypes of Vintage interact on three different levels or in three different zones, which is true.  Blue decks tend to interact on the stack; Workshop decks tend to interact on the battlefield and Dredge tends to interact out of the graveyard.  He further argues that blue players have a definite preference for interacting on the stack over other legitimate forms of interaction.  The argument is that any restriction to Dredge at this point in time with the limited success it's historically and presently had is evidence that players who prefer, say, stack interactions want to force these types of interactions on the other archetypes.  Your insistence on restricting Serum Powder further reinforces his argument in that you want Dredge to operate like 'real' Magic, meaning interacting on the stack.  You're essentially saying you want Dredge to operate on the stack, like 'real' Magic instead of out of the graveyard.  You don't understand that you're reinforcing his argument while thinking you're not.  He's saying if other archetypes would accomodate other forms of interaction in their deck construction plans, they wouldn't experience this 'helplessness' at the 'over-the-top' power level of Dredge when it's really just unpreparedness.  If you choose to ignore one of the three main forms of interaction in this format, you'll reap the consequences of it just as if you choose not to interact in a meaningful way against Workshops or blue decks.  Players who choose to interact with Dredge in a meaningful way don't experience egregious problems with Dredge.  

@ Smmenen - I wholeheartedly agree with your stance in regards to Dredge.  

Nope I am saying that manaless Dredge enjoys unrestricted one-sided turn 0 timetwisters with no consequence. Powder's power is completely unchecked in manaless dredge.
Timetwister is restricted. Logically, to enforce balance across the board, powder should be too. Otherwise lets unrestrict timetwister!
Without restriction, the game field is radically distorted, even if manaless Dredge is not the dominant deck, the distortion is still being accommodated for. Everyone warps their sideboard to keep the beast in check.

Any one degenerate deck can be ganged up on by the rest of the field and kept in check. However, that doesn't mean that that state of affairs is logically best for the format or optimal.

And if you want my position on banning, google up Smennen's own article on Banning Will. Unlike him, I don't waffle on logical courses of action.

[NicolaeAlmighty]

Nope I am saying that manaless Dredge enjoys unrestricted one-sided turn 0 timetwisters with no consequence. Powder's power is completely unchecked in manaless dredge.
Timetwister is restricted. Logically, to enforce balance across the board, powder should be too. Otherwise lets unrestrict timetwister!
Without restriction, the game field is radically distorted, even if manaless Dredge is not the dominant deck, the distortion is still being accommodated for. Everyone warps their sideboard to keep the beast in check.

Any one degenerate deck can be ganged up on by the rest of the field and kept in check. However, that doesn't mean that that state of affairs is logically best for the format or optimal.

And if you want my position on banning, google up Smennen's own article on Banning Will. Unlike him, I don't waffle on logical courses of action.

Yeah, I usually don't come out of the woodwork to comment on these kinds of things, but this is just getting silly. Smenenenen and co have actually explained in every way, shape, and form how pointless these arguments are. Workshop warps the format too you know! I mean, you have to actually play basic lands, bounce spells, and have the mindset that your shit might just cost more mana... Where's the huge argument against how unfun and warping that is?

The crew of logic and reason will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Nothing will happen, and I mean nothing. Bazaar/ Powder won't get touched and this individual has no intention of changing his opinion (both of which are 100% acceptable). He's allowed to vent about having to care about metagaming and how unfun that can be.

You might as well just let this one go. Trust me, I've had the same kind of fun trying to convince people that 9/11 was not an inside job... You can't ever win. Just tip your hat and walk away.

I would actually say Powder is closer to Diminishing Returns as it exiles shit... And that's unrestricted. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

[credmond]

Nope I am saying that manaless Dredge enjoys unrestricted one-sided turn 0 timetwisters with no consequence. Powder's power is completely unchecked in manaless dredge.
Timetwister is restricted. Logically, to enforce balance across the board, powder should be too. Otherwise lets unrestrict timetwister!
Without restriction, the game field is radically distorted, even if manaless Dredge is not the dominant deck, the distortion is still being accommodated for. Everyone warps their sideboard to keep the beast in check.

Any one degenerate deck can be ganged up on by the rest of the field and kept in check. However, that doesn't mean that that state of affairs is logically best for the format or optimal.

And if you want my position on banning, google up Smennen's own article on Banning Will. Unlike him, I don't waffle on logical courses of action.

I would actually say Powder is closer to Diminishing Returns as it exiles shit... And that's unrestricted. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

Yes, but is Diminishing Returns turn 0, one-sided and zero mana to cast?

Look, the only thing I am really asking for here is that people be brutally honest about the level of power that is wielded by Serum Powder as it manifests itself in manaless Dredge. Really, just describe what the card does in that context. Then do the logical thing.

Besides, Serum Powder doesn't change or alter how dredge interacts. Dredge with or without Powder still abuses the graveyard. It only makes it into a deterministic machine. Free one-sided, turn zero timetwisters tend to do that. So asking for restriction of Serum Powder is tantamount to nothing more than asking that that outrageous power be restricted.

[voltron00x]

Nope I am saying that manaless Dredge enjoys unrestricted one-sided turn 0 timetwisters with no consequence. Powder's power is completely unchecked in manaless dredge.
Timetwister is restricted. Logically, to enforce balance across the board, powder should be too. Otherwise lets unrestrict timetwister!
Without restriction, the game field is radically distorted, even if manaless Dredge is not the dominant deck, the distortion is still being accommodated for. Everyone warps their sideboard to keep the beast in check.

Any one degenerate deck can be ganged up on by the rest of the field and kept in check. However, that doesn't mean that that state of affairs is logically best for the format or optimal.

And if you want my position on banning, google up Smennen's own article on Banning Will. Unlike him, I don't waffle on logical courses of action.

I would actually say Powder is closer to Diminishing Returns as it exiles shit... And that's unrestricted. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

Yes, but is Diminishing Returns turn 0, one-sided and zero mana to cast?

Look, the only thing I am really asking for here is that people be brutally honest about the level of power that is wielded by Serum Powder as it manifests itself in manaless Dredge. Really, just describe what the card does in that context. Then do the logical thing.

I feel like this conversation is going in circles.  Several people have pointed out that the widespread use of Serum Powder in Dredge is a direct result of the surge in Shop decks that occurred when Lodestone Golem was printed.  The popularity of Shops forces Dredge players to use Powder b/c they can't cast spells.  So, you tell me - if Shops are also "unfun" and also "aren't Magic" (b/c obviously one person never being able to cast a spell from turn one until they lose is how Magic is meant to be played, whatever that even means), and also warp sideboards (Brad Granberry had a Gush deck with NINE Shop hate cards!), and Shops are forcing Dredge to use Serum Powder, couldn't we just restrict Lodestone Golem and fix everything that's wrong?

That is, to the extent that anything is actually wrong.

PS Nothing is actually wrong, outside of the logic a lot of people are using throughout this thread.